Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp's Interviews Match Precisely- LaVoy Finicum WAS Murdered in Oregon

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dreamingawake

Thank you for the confirmation and update. I hope something is posted soon. So many questions about what's going on up there on all fronts... and no answers!

Live calls being answered from the refuge :
YouTube Stream

a reply to: anon72

wait ok so now I'm confused again (sorry)

first she says "he didn't have a gun." with a period. then..

"he had a pistol strapped to his hip." again with a period

so is she saying he had a gun on his hip not in a shoulder holster or pocket?

I mean, it would seem the fact of if he had a gun or not is all we can really debate, as the video without audio can be slanted to whomever's story one would want to side with??

again just trying to understand.

Just my two cents... to address the OP and video statements of two witnesses, they had plenty of time to corroborate a story after Finicum was shot. Several minutes passed after Finicum was shot before the others were removed from the vehicle. Then several more minutes passed before they were separated from one another. You can clearly see them in the aerial footage sitting next to each other on the road. Working in investigations I can tell you that when stories are nearly identical it is a red flag. Particularly when it is during a traumatic experience such as depicted in the video.

Next, as claimed by some there were shots fired while Finicum was in the vehicle. Cannot say for sure based on the aerial footage however I watched the entire aerial video prior to reading the official narrative and before reading commenters here regarding what they saw. This was important as it allows one to keep a more objective mind when watching something that could be interpreted in different ways depending on what ones mind wants to see. (Confirmation bias). I think this whole thing is getting bent out of proportion as a thread that was posted a few days ago with OP saying that without a doubt Finicum was murdered in cold blood because of an eyewitness (one of the suspects) then video was released contradicting those claims and now that the two ladies mentioned in OP have the same story then that must be the truth. I'm not trying to down anyone here I respect all of you guys and gals and your opinions. Frankly the fact that you are on this board discussing these matters puts us all well above the majority of humans that are oblivious to the world around them. But unfortunately I feel like what I am seeing is a bit too much grasping at straws. Think critically and objectively folks...

Think of it like this.... if the evidence was reversed... say there was video evidence by all accounts pretty clear showing what happened was dozens of armed federal police swarmed an unarmed man, shot him to death and planted a gun on him.... then you have two eye witnesses (not impartial witnesses I might add) who state that what was shown in the video was not what happened, but instead the so called unarmed man really had a concealed firearm that he was reaching for when shot lawfully by authorities.

The video is the compelling evidence. Video does not lie. I'm all for a good revolution but we have to be careful as belicose rhetoric tugs at our emotions and emotions cloud rational critical thinking.

Everyone involved in this standoff has their own agenda. Don't forget that.

a reply to: beyondtruth

Video doesn't lie but it also doesn't give a full perspective on events. Especially when there is no audio. He was shot by state police where is their audio? Where is the body cams and dash cam footage? Why hurry to release something that gives you the benefit of the doubt that is so obviously a partial view on events?

To cya. To deal a demoralizing blow to the liberty movement. They walked into a trap. A trap many tried to warn them about. They gave the feds the ammo they needed to deal a psychological blow to their enemy. Their enemy are a free and informed people. I didn't agree with them taking the refuge. They acted on the emotion you are talking about without thinking critically. That doesn't mean by making a mistake they deserved to die for something that could have been resolved peacefully. The leo's involved should be ashamed and now the feds have gotten everything they wanted.

Their hands are clean but the state police... that is a different matter. Protests are happening when before it was just talk. Now the locals are mad and they will have their hands full while the feds sit back and enjoy their "victory".

Did he have a gun or didn't he? that is the question. It has been said they all left their arms at the refuge while traveling to John Day. There is no way to see in that video if he was reaching for something or if he was taking shots. You can't see muzzle flashes even when we all know he has been shot. So if he was armed there is no reason to lie about the weapon. If he wasn't armed and it can be proven then this takes a whole different context.

Obama made the call. The entire operation was to show who was in control, and to let the people know what is coming if Anyone stands up against them.

It Was a government sanctioned hit

originally posted by: akira131
a reply to: anon72

wait ok so now I'm confused again (sorry)

first she says "he didn't have a gun." with a period. then..

"he had a pistol strapped to his hip." again with a period

so is she saying he had a gun on his hip not in a shoulder holster or pocket?

I mean, it would seem the fact of if he had a gun or not is all we can really debate, as the video without audio can be slanted to whomever's story one would want to side with??

again just trying to understand.

I think what she meant was he did not have a gun in his hand. "He didnt have a gun, I saw him lying on the ground". That says to me she saw him lying on the ground with no gun in his hand or near him. "He had a pistol strapped to his hip". She probobly knew that. So my question is the same as hers. Why would he be reaching in his jacket under his arm for a pistol he kept on his hip???

The man was shot likely from the many gunshots that witnesses at the scene whi are not professional liars can verify came before he exited the vehicle.

This is a pretty cut and dry case of cold blooded murder.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

That makes sense. But if that is the case why would the feds lie about the weapon they recovered? The video already gave them what they wanted. and how would the pacific patriot network know what serial number is on the weapon the feds seized especially one reported as stolen 2 years prior?

Does a civilian have the ability to run that serial number? I do not know of any way

a reply to: akira131

Maybe they have a sympathizer on the inside?

a reply to: onequestion

I think they had several...

But that is just my opinion

I watched some of the live feeds. there was no reason to raid the refuge as several of these "militia" men sat talking about killing feds as they drank and got high. They gave the authorities all the ammo they need for a long list of violations and I can't see anyone with half a brain acting like that in full view of the world while trying to make a stand on principle. If you are not squeeeeky clean you are going to prison for a long time and your message lost.

There is a long list of very questionable actions by people in that group. Like I said though.... many people tried to warn them but unfortunately they would not listen. They trusted the wrong people. "I'm not a fed, that is crazy... now let me live stream this group of guys over here you don't know very well so the world can see what you are like"...

Indeed.

a reply to: akira131

Akira , I get you. And I totally get where you and others are coming from.

My ultimate point is this....

These people were extremists. Im not saying they were wrong about some of the things being done by the BLM and other federal agencies, however if these guys were Arab Muslims and they did and said they EXACT same things as Lavoy Finicum, everyone would be calling them terrorists. I don't draw this comparison lightly, only to show that we should be judging of actions, not words and emotions.

Lavoy Finicum stated in no uncertain terms that he would NOT be taken alive by authorities. So regardless of whether Lavoy shot first or even was actually reaching for a weapon, if I was a police officer on the scene knowing what this guy had said and what he stood for I would not take any chances that I am the one getting killed and not going home to see my family that night. I think many people don't think like that because they have never been in a life or death situation.

I'm not claiming that the video is 100% declaritive of the official narrative, but it makes more sense than going against what I see with my own eyes and listening to the testimony of questionable eye witnesses. I will again state that everyone involved with this has an agenda....

One last issue I would like to address. I keep hearing that if Lavoy Finicum wanted to shoot it out with police then why did he come out with his hands up? Well here is my answer.... I have watched some interviews with Lavoy Finicum and I can say without a doubt he is a patriot. He clearly was willing to die for what he believed. He stated as much not to long before these events transpired.

So to answer the question I posed above, Lavoy Finicum is a patriot but also a human. He knew there were innocent people in the vehicle with him and had he came out shooting or shot from inside the vehicle he would have known that more than likely everyone in that vehicle would have been killed. I don't think he or anyone would want that.

So while he was willing to die for his cause and did just that he was not willing to be the reason that women were killed unjustly.

a reply to: akira131

and how would the pacific patriot network know what serial number is on the weapon the feds seized especially one reported as stolen 2 years prior?

Does a civilian have the ability to run that serial number? I do not know of any way

It wouldn't surprise me if the PPN has active law enforcement officers with access to such info. I know they are somewhat associated with the Oathkeepers -- I don't know to what extent -- and I'm sure they have LEOs among them who would be able to access stolen gun info. I'm sure some departments are much more restrictive than others, with some more complacent -- even sloppy, perhaps criminally -- about following rules and procedures.

Just one way they could get it, I would think.

a reply to: beyondtruth

you make a good argument sir and I can completely see your point. I agree with much of it. That being said.. If I were said LEO I would have refused to put my life on the line for the feds in the first place. It is like jury nullification. If we continue to go along with this mess then we are just as guilty as the people passing the orders down.

I grew up around military and law enforcement. I was trained in martial arts for 7 years by a sheriff. I have advocated for them a great many times in my community. I know what they go through daily as i grew up seeing it. That being said... no one is infallible. and I agree everyone here has an agenda. Our collective agenda should be freedom and if we continue to "just do our jobs" then we are responsible for our actions and their outcomes the same as Levoy and others are responsible for theirs.

We can still solve our problems peacefully, but not so long as we are willing to kill those who are willing to take the stand that so many of us are, as of yet, unwilling to take.

If any of the LEO's involved have any conscious, they will leak everything they can get their hands on. Stop helping a system that will feed off your corpse once it has finished sucking the life out of you. The feds used them as meat shields and they did what they did having seen the rhetoric put out by the occupiers.

I didn't see any cops kill those rioting over the summer with an ambush, because they weren't given that order as it played into the feds agenda.
We keep fighting each other while those guiding the direction get to eat at the remains of our republic like vultures. It makes me sick. We have to stand together, all of us, for the future. For our children's future. We have to fix this and make this a place we feel comfortable and safe having our children inherit.

We are doing a horrible job playing this chess game.

(sorry, rant over)

originally posted by: akira131
a reply to: MALBOSIA

That makes sense. But if that is the case why would the feds lie about the weapon they recovered? The video already gave them what they wanted. and how would the pacific patriot network know what serial number is on the weapon the feds seized especially one reported as stolen 2 years prior?

Does a civilian have the ability to run that serial number? I do not know of any way

I dont know why the FBI would plant a gun if he had one already. There was some claims that all the guns were left at the refuge. Maybe Cox was discribing his hip as where he normally keeps his gun and maybe the LEO expected him to have one. I dont know.

I dont know about the stolen gun story. How did she get the serial number of the gun the police had? Im confused there.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am as well. Which is why I lean towards no one being completely honest. Like beyondtruth said, everyone here has an agenda.
5 people can witness the same event 5 different ways.

but he either had a gun or he did not. seems to me there is a lot of mis/dis-information

a reply to: akira131

There is a long list of very questionable actions by people in that group. Like I said though.... many people tried to warn them but unfortunately they would not listen. They trusted the wrong people.

This ^^^. Their grievances were legitimate. Their solutions were not. And are not. Even if they had "taken" the refuge, and limited their demands to a pardon -- or a commuted sentence -- from the president for the Hammonds, I could have supported that civil disobedience. I think they would have gotten far more support if they had stuck with their original mission which was the unjust dual sentencing for the Hammonds. Just put a laser on that one injustice...

Instead they've gone off on several tangents, and some are pretty self-serving, and many are just a serious misunderstanding of natural and Constitutional principles. Who is coming up with this stuff? Is this what they've come up with themselves? Is someone unknown feeding it to them? I have felt many times that someone is deliberately sabotaging the legitimate issues for the craziness.

But the issues are just so big and widespread, and the Bundys and the Hammonds and the Standoff and the FBI and the BLM are all just parts of a much greater problem. I have seen discussions about learning from the many many mistakes of this protest, and refining their methods, to make sure nothing like this can happen again. I hope they do. I'm so tired of excuses, and so tired of defeatist attitudes, and so tired of the whining. We know what the problems are. Let's put aside our petty bickering, get together on the big issues and the big principles that affect us all -- such as ALL lives matter -- and find solutions... make solutions. We are not helpless unless we choose to be.

originally posted by: akira131
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am as well. Which is why I lean towards no one being completely honest. Like beyondtruth said, everyone here has an agenda.
5 people can witness the same event 5 different ways.

but he either had a gun or he did not. seems to me there is a lot of mis/dis-information

Doesn't matter whether he had a gun or not, His second Amendment Assured him of this. Fact is, they were shooting at them before he even left the Vehicle, Which ended any way of defending himself in a court of law. They never intended for him to Survive, they murdered him in cold blood, because he had a beef with them

a reply to: Boadicea

Well said sir. Well said.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Thank you very much for posting this. I'll do some viewing later. Curious to see what the naysaying apologists think of this.

originally posted by: SPECULUM

originally posted by: akira131
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am as well. Which is why I lean towards no one being completely honest. Like beyondtruth said, everyone here has an agenda.
5 people can witness the same event 5 different ways.

but he either had a gun or he did not. seems to me there is a lot of mis/dis-information

Doesn't matter whether he had a gun or not, His second Amendment Assured him of this. Fact is, they were shooting at them before he even left the Vehicle, Which ended any way of defending himself in a court of law. They never intended for him to Survive, they murdered him in cold blood, because he had a beef with them

I somewhat agree with this. which is why I said the LEO's should have protested themselves by standing down. They did not and now are responsible. But killing someone in cold blood is walking up and killing them without provocation. There was plenty of provocation here. You can't start waiving a gun and expect to get sympathy when someone shoots back and that is basically what they were doing at this refuge. They knew better than to expect the feds to do nothing. Of course they wanted an armed confrontation but not before they were given the psychological angle they needed first which the occupiers gave them in troves.

If you really want to show the world the boot on your neck you do so without arms and be ready to die for it. Let them beat you in the streets while you sit passively taking it. Then everyone sees the emperor's new clothes. You go in making demands and stating intent to die, then you will get what you asked for from the feds but not before they demoralize everything you stand for. So that no one else can do such a thing with anything resembling popular support.

Please point me too the evidence that authorities fired before Finicum exited the vehicle.

originally posted by: SPECULUM

originally posted by: akira131
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am as well. Which is why I lean towards no one being completely honest. Like beyondtruth said, everyone here has an agenda.
5 people can witness the same event 5 different ways.

but he either had a gun or he did not. seems to me there is a lot of mis/dis-information

Doesn't matter whether he had a gun or not, His second Amendment Assured him of this. Fact is, they were shooting at them before he even left the Vehicle, Which ended any way of defending himself in a court of law. They never intended for him to Survive, they murdered him in cold blood, because he had a beef with them