Oregon shooting of Mr Lavoy UP CLOSE & Higher Res!! (won't get better than this I bet)

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

I must admit, I was not aware that the terrorists attacked the occupants trapped in the vehicle too.

The FBI spokesman admitted that. he said they were some sort of soft bullets with mace inside (I forget the term.) I'd surely like to see the truck at this point--both sides.

Pepper balls? (Israeli forces use them to fire pepper spray accurately at distance)..

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Yep - that's state sanctioned murder alright.

I bet anyone would do the same thing when being shot at - and he was shot at first by government agents THEN reached for "something"...be it a gun or gunshot wound.

He started with his hands up then put them to his body while quickly turning around. If a person is shot they would put their hands to the wound then maybe out again with hands up since then the person is trying not to get shot again. At some point the person will try and defend themselves once it is at the point they know they will die.

It would be interesting in knowing how many times he was shot...

I think he could have been reaching for a weapon, but to me it really looks like his reactions were due to taking a bullet first.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: anon72

It looks like he opened his jacket and checked a wound on his side. That's what I see.

It's hard to tell but he opens his jacket puts his hand on His side and looks at it but doesn't grab anything, he couldn't have been grabbing a firearm because he used his other hand to open the jacket, if he was grabbing his firearm he wouldn't have been able to open his jacket like that.

I have to agree with you. He looks more like he is grabbing at a wound, not a weapon. If he was grabbing at a weapon, why didn't it ever come out. He did a full rotation before the fatal shot. If he reached for a weapon, why did they let him reach again and then turn around. Cuz, they were already shooting.

This was cold-blooded murder for the world to see. What will be done about it? Not a damn thing and that's too bad.

originally posted by: bandersnatch
These threads seem to predominate with the same very negative posters.....
The proof is still out there for either side....
Till some real clear footage and some audio shows up. well be arguing till the cows come home...
Perhaps that too is an intended consequence....

We have ot go where hte truth leads, whether we like it or not. Whether it's for or against Lavoy or the authorities or whoever.

And the truth is we don't got evidence yet Lavoy was shot before his hands were up. We don't got evidence the vehicle they were in was shot before he exited with LIVE ammuntion, not nonlethal rounds.

We also know he had a shoulder holster wiht a 9mm on his left side. He was reaching for his left side. The authorities likely would have had this information, so his making these moves would have been even more provocative. What more justification is needed to fire on him?

We know he was ordered to shut the engine off and all to put hands outside. Lavoy did not shut the engine off and instead shouted they were going to the sheriff. He was not doing what a person would do if they intended on listening to the authorities. HOWEVER, when Ryan Bundy put his hands out of the window and shouted they would let the woman exit, the officers/agents apparently fired on them. If that's true, why did they do that? Soon after Lavoy sped off and later met with the blockade where he was killed.

I think Lavoy instigated what occured by being aggressive. The officers/agents may have overreacted later, but Finicum acted badly.

I still do not know everything I wnat to. We need to know more aobut Shawna and Victoria's testimony and piece it all together with the rest of hte evidence and whatever authorities release in the future.

EDIT: Want to also say Shawna/Victoria claim Finicum was shouting "Just shoot me!" or "Shoot me!" when he left the vehicle.

originally posted by: jonnywhite

when Ryan Bundy put his hands out of the window and shouted they would let the woman exit, the officers/agents apparently fired on them. If that's true, why did they do that?

I believe was to flush them out, to disperse them out of the truck into a vulnerable position... As well to give chase into that hidden road block.... In other words they ambushed them.

Also Shawna thinks Finicum was shot in the leg which made him lower his hands. She doesn't think he ever unholstered his gun. She thinks hte fatal shot came from one of those FBI snipers in camo with a long rifle--some 50 feet away or something. Mentioned Fincum maybe wearing bullpet proof vest.

More here--I watched this earlier:


EDIt: And what about those FBI snipers? Does anyone else remmber seeing them? Shawna and Victoria the only ones?

a reply to: Rezlooper

This was cold-blooded murder for the world to see. What will be done about it? Not a damn thing and that's too bad.

Sadly because people wanted this to happen the way it did

total bungled operation,... LEO's had all kinds of time to plan this & the best they come up with is a simple roadblock. Apparently the protesters thought that wasn't a possibility, but i digress , you'd think LEO's could of atleast disabled the car electromagnetically, instead the plan was to have some knucklehead jump out in front to prevent running of the roadblock & force the driver to choose between running him over or driving into the ditch completely, then promptly reward him with a cheap shot .

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Hey burgerbuddy. I guess you have proof otherwise huh? I'm speculating here from what I have seen of the video and what I have heard from reading these boards. I offered no proof above, only observation. My observation is not a pronouncement of fact. Rather a plausible interpretation from limited information we have been presented with.

You however appear to have made up your mind on exactly how this all played out yet I can suppose that the information you have available to you for a rational and considered understanding of it all is far superior to my own.
However I think not. Rather, your leap to invective innuendo indicates a lack of ''proof' of your position and are seeking to pump up your argument by wild accusations.

I was just going on what you wrote in the post I replied too.
you wrote,

"Chances are that officer had never been in an action like this. I don't suppose there have been many gun battles up there in Burns that he has had experience with."

"Chances are he had been prepped on the nature of the driver, that he was armed and dangerous, that he had bragged about not being taken alive and that he had already run from the first stop down the road."

The officer has been around for the month they have been in the sanctuary. He would have known what was going on and if, by some chance he was amped up at a briefing and jumped the gun pulling the trigger, one can blame adrenaline or poor training or both, on top of inexperience with gun battles, of which I must have missed.

I didn't agree with your excuse for the officer shooting.

Without audio to this video we cannot determine cause. The video is too grainy to pick up muzzle flashes, therefore the discussion can go 2 ways.

He was shot and reaching for his side.

He was reaching for a gun and shot.

Both sides are valid arguments at the moment.

originally posted by: Mr Headshot
I was listening to Clyde Lewis the other night and a caller mentioned something pretty potent.

The caller was a vet of Iraq 2.0 and talked about how in Iraq the rules of engagement are such that you can not fire until fired upon. But here, in America, the rules are more lax for police.

Check this out..... I'm an OIF vet as well.

There are two different terms used when deadly force is allowable. Hostile acts, and hostile intent. This is what gives our service members the latitude to use deadly force so long as there is an interpreted danger. Now, we were briefed to use the minimum force required, but once again, the latitude given allowed us to protect ourselves without fear of unjust recourse.

Essentially, in order for a service member to be in violation of ROE he/she would have to either a. Have submitted demonstrable proof of committing an egregious violation of ROE by the service member, or b. Have their fellow service members testify against them. This was basically my understanding as I was briefed. At no time was I ever briefed to only fire when fired upon.

How about this?

a. You may open fire only if you, friendly forces or persons or property under your
protection are threatened with deadly force. This means:

(1) You may open fire against an individual who fires or aims his weapon at, or
otherwise demonstrates an intent to imminently attack, you, friendly forces, or
Persons with Designated Special Status (PDSS) or property with designated
special status under your protection.

(2) You may open fire against an individual who plants, throws, or prepares to throw,
an explosive or incendiary device at, or otherwise demonstrates an intent to
imminently attack you, friendly forces, PDSS or property with designated special
status under your protection.

(3) You may open fire against an individual deliberately driving a vehicle at you,
friendly forces, or PDSS or property with designated special status.

ROE

Still haven't seen any body cam stuff.

I saw one youtuber claim so but when I saw it it was the footage of the woman who rode up on the stop, just after the shooting. It's posted.

I have been hearing that they fired Pepper Ball Ammo, to make them surrender etc. Anyone?

Looking at the video, pretty hard pepper balls........

And, how did Bundy get shot in the shoulder, or schrappel.? hmmm?

Also Shawna thinks Finicum was shot in the leg which made him lower his hands. She doesn't think he ever unholstered his gun. She thinks hte fatal shot came from one of those FBI snipers in camo with a long rifle--some 50 feet away or something.

So even the "eyewitness" is just speculating.

In the country today, it's becoming clear that conflicts with law enforcement put a sizable bump on a person's mortality rate. They are not going to lose legal, life or facewise.

a reply to: visitedbythem

I dated a cop for several months.

I dated a dental heygenist. She liked to hang out with other tooth pullers and dentists. We had a lot of sex on patients that were knocked out. A couple of months and I knew how EVERY other dentist office in the world operated, and I'm totally not lying to make a point.

So did you report them sugar (.)*? No? Scared of that thin blue line I bet. Never know what might happen to the ex.

The point here is that you don't have a point. You "knew" some bad cops. That doesn't make all cops bad. Logical fallacy. You sure know how to ATS!

originally posted by: Tellurian
you'd think LEO's could of atleast disabled the car electromagnetically,

This is real life, not a kid's movie!

a reply to: Domo1

You sure know how to ATS!

You made ATS into a verb, much like Google has become.

The police issue is something that is following what history has shown about power. Parts go bad and other parts follow. The good parts often need the whole for their own protection. Human nature make for blurring right and wrong in certain situations. Fixing corruption can be a dangerous under taking. I think it will be this way for a long time.

a reply to: Domo1

I dated a dental heygenist. She liked to hang out with other tooth pullers and dentists. We had a lot of sex on patients that were knocked out. A couple of months and I knew how EVERY other dentist office in the world operated, and I'm totally not lying to make a point

What the heck of a point are you trying to make with this statement. Read it again.....

Or is it me?

a reply to: anon72

I think it was a counterpoint to the post it references...

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: visitedbythem

One doesn't have to be "paranoid" to see Finicum reaching for his gun.
One also doesn't have to be "paranoid" to shoot Finicum in this situation.

.....yeah, they should just use "bean bag rounds", that'll teach em to attempt to pull out a gun.

Are you serious? (Wait, don't answer that)

He was dead because they intended to use deadly force and thats what they did.

Well, apparently, they suck at their intended goal because Finicum is the only one dead right now.
Which leads us to the next question, if they were so hell bent on murdering these people, how come the rest of them (that surrendered) are still breathing?

Oh, but I know, I know...you're going to tell us about the "over 100" bullets they "fired into the truck" now....without a shred of proof of that either.
Color me not surprised, or amused....

Where is the proof he even had a gun on him? Have you seen photographic evidence of his corpse with a pistol in his pocket or in a shoulder holster?

Neither side can make a definitive claim based on this video. He could have been reaching for a gun, he could have be unarmed reaching at a wound. We need to hear when the first shots rang out, because that will help quell all this speculation.

No matter what, it is clearly suicide by cop. You don't run at the police with your arms raised waving your hands wildly when you are being detained. That's a sure bet that you will be shot. You aren't even supposed to exit the vehicle. But, either way, if he didn't want to be shot, he would have held his hands up, turned around slowly with his backs to the officers, and he would have slowly laid on the ground stomach side down.

It sucks that he was killed. But, any normal citizen knows that you absolutely do not exit the vehicle and then proceed to run towards the police (who are pointing guns at you) waving your hands wildly.