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

Interesting closer look at the footage. Appears now there there was likely no gun in his hand. Reactive thinking on the shooter's part. Of course, waiting on the sound footage will be very helpful.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

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

Nor do I claim that scenario to be the case, only that it might have played out that way. Having never been in a situation as that I can only suppose to motive, or lack of, from my own limited experiences. From my remote vantage point, viewing the footage is inconclusive to form a firm statement in either direction. Again I was offering a reasonable, though opposing possibility to the mad dog LEO image that had been prominent among other replies.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.

Obviously in the end what happened is what ever LEO says happened but I agree with what you see.

It looked like he was first distancing himself from the vehicle I am assuming because he did not want any gunfire intended for him to hit the passengers. That to me suggest gunfire was already used and he may have been hit already cause he seems to be clearly checking a wound. He looks like he wanted to surrender but instinctively also wanted to see the wound. If it was the officer coming out of the woods that shot him first then I would say that he dropped too soon. I think he was already shot.

I am not saying LEO did not think he was going for a weapon but it looks to me like if he was under duress due to already being shot.

This video needs volume.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Many of us have seen and experienced violence and abuse by LEO, myself included.

It tends to create a bias but it also shows you how wide spread this kind of corruption is. Anytime they get the opportunity to be violent they love it!

First hand experience, weather it's necessary or not.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
That to me suggest gunfire was already used and he may have been hit already cause he seems to be clearly checking a wound. He looks like he wanted to surrender but instinctively also wanted to see the wound. If it was the officer coming out of the woods that shot him first then I would say that he dropped too soon. I think he was already shot.

I am not saying LEO did not think he was going for a weapon but it looks to me like if he was under duress due to already being shot.

This video needs volume.

I fly drones so I will tell you I do not know of a camera that could have sound too. You have a very good point in he may have been shot already. He sure didn't come out slowly like the second guy did and all his moves were quicker under duress, like he didn't know what he should do.

Well, yet another death at the hands of an officer/agent. This sort of thing happens far too often, it's just about an everyday occurrence. Just another day in America.

I never really got on board with the "protest" but this right here is wrong. Sure, it was very stupid of him for not stopping at the checkpoint, and flying off the side of the road, while seemingly running into a officer/agent in the process. But this is not one of those situations where death is the best or only option.

It's hard to judge the video when shots were fired exactly, but I agree with most that it appears he only "reached for something" because he had been hit. It's pure reaction, not an attempt at retaliation. His body language suggests he had basically realized it was over. They had him. The cops/feds could've easily taken him down right then and there and cuffed him, then haul him off to jail, but they didn't. The cop that had been creeping up behind him could've very easily tackled him from behind while the other one was watching him from the front. Not to mention they could've tried using a taser, handheld or projectile. Or at least use non-lethal ammunition if available. There are many things they easily could've done without having to resort to lethal force.

All in all, this shouldn't have happened the way that it did. Lavoy wasn't exactly an innocent man, but shouldn't have been a dead one. This sort of thing shouldn't keep on happening either. Something has to be done. whether it be engineering better and more effective non-lethal weapons for submissive purposes, or imposing much stricter rules of engagement policies. As others have pointed out previously, acts like that wouldn't be tolerated within our military. Yet, from all the things I've seen, it's perfectly acceptable for a cop to proclaim that they had THOUGHT, or maybe were PARANOID that a suspect meant imminent danger. Or simply state that the person had not been cooperative. And bam, they're dead. It's insanity.

originally posted by: GD21D

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

Ah, thanks so much for responding and providing some clarification about that subject. Much appreciated.

It looks to me that right before he pulled his gun he looked towards the truck lookin to see if they would get down and fight.Looks like he was wrong.

a reply to: mike dangerously

Imo it looks like he's stumbling through the snow, unsure of what to do, he does reach into his coat before he is killed, but for what no one knows.

You're version is full of speculation slanted toward one side. Trying to defend a murderer, perhaps?

Yep. Looks like he ran 2 roadblocks, tried to run over some people then, tried to draw his gun on law enforcement. Looks like he got just what was coming to him.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer freeloader.

As I said elsewhere, the one odd thing in the video is the LEO that comes from the treeline that is apparently wearing only a short-sleeved in what must've been extremely cold conditions...



It may not have anything to do with the actual issue at hand - murder/lawful self-defense. It's just very odd to me.

Going on what we're seeing in the video - and only that - I would agree that it was suicide by cop. What was he thinking stumbling out of the vehicle impetuously walking towards law enforcers. Any idiot will tell you that in that situation you throw up your hands and remain as still as possible making no sudden movements. Self-preservation. I don't see that here...

a reply to: anon72

Thank God the police reacted in time before the guy pulled his gun out,our police go through so much.