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

OPINION

This is my take based on my understanding of the events and analyzing of the video evidence that has been released, pure speculation however I do have experience analyzing and presenting video evidence in court.

After the vehicle pulled away from the initial traffic stop, the state police and FBI hardened the road block and most officers took defensive positions among the trees/ snow bank. The officers probably chose that precise location because they felt that they could bottle neck the vehicle in to either a) stopping before reaching the roadblock and surrendering or, b) crashing into the road block in a hail of bullets. The Up-hill s-curve puts the roadblock out of sight until it’s too late.

The vehicle approached the roadblock at a high rate of speed, note that the roadblock has several armed officers, and this also is by design as they now have a legal right of way when it comes to firing on that vehicle as it approaches putting the officers safety at risk. Whether or not that would have been the proper tactic in that situation is not clear. Legally, there is precedent, but morally it is questionable, at best.

So we have the vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed and as it approaches the roadblock the armed officers may or may not have fired rounds in attempt to disable the vehicle or the operator. Instead of crashing into the roadblock, the vehicle swerves left to avoid the roadblock and crashes into the snowbank.

At this point you have armed officers from the road side as Lavoy Finicum emerges from the vehicle. Two things here, I can almost guarantee that Lavoy Finicum got out of the vehicle under his own accord, meaning that the Police would not have prompted anyone to get out of the vehicle immediately or in a hasty manner. Second, Lavoy Finicum knew there was a good chance they were all going to be killed.

Lavoy Finicum gets out of the vehicle and puts his hands in the air. At this point the police are probably yelling instructions to Lavoy Finicum for him to get on the ground, or to get back in the car. He continues to walk away from the vehicle and from all indications all of the police on the roadside are willing to work through the situation. Lavoy Finicum then appears to open his coat in a gesture to show he is unarmed. He faces the officer on the road side opening his coat. Obviously if he would have been reaching for a weapon he would have been put down by that officer at that moment. The officer on the road side did not appear to fire as Finicum reached to his chest area at least two times and the officer closest to him on the road side did not fire or appear threatened.

At this point it gets very strange from a law enforcement perspective. Another law enforcement officer appears out of the tree line from the snow bank with a pistol aimed and closes in within several feet of Lavoy Finicum. It appears that this officer is also shouting commands at Finicum, who turns to the officer coming from the snow bank. It is at this time that Finicum again appears to pull his coat open in a gesture to show that he is unarmed. The officer closest to him in the snow bank side begins firing his pistol at Lavoy Finicum.

A couple problems here.

The officer is firing in the directions of not only the white vehicle full of occupants who are currently posing no threat, but also firing in the direction of other law enforcement officers. You can see in the video it appears they were not expecting the officer from the snow bank side to fire from that trajectory either. This is not standard procedure. It is bad form and somewhat a disgrace to watch. It is my estimation that it is during this gunfire that Lavoy Finicum was hit and killed and other rounds hit the vehicle Finicum was driving injuring at least one occupant. It appears that the officer on the snow bank side fired at least a dozen rounds because if you watch as he is firing he reaches his free hand around to his bag, I presume, to pull out another magazine. So more than likely he had fired 12 to 15 rounds at the direction of sardines in a can as well as other state and or federal law enforcement officials.

With Finicum incapacitated the officers focused their attention on the other occupants of the vehicle. The officers chose to deploy devices designed to concuss and disorient the passengers. This decision also is a bit confusing. You would normally use stun devices when you are about to make contact with someone. The effects of these devices in such an open environment would typically not last more than a few minutes. Yet the officers did not begin to evacuate the vehicle for more than five minutes.

Also during this time there appears to be either more gunfire through the front windshield and side window, or the police were deploying further tactical measures. This could be rubber bullets or any number of gadgets the feds have really. Its pretty much textbook take down from this point on.

So was LaVoy Finicum murdered? Many of us agree on the findings I just think from a lawful point of view that under the circumstances the officers were justified in shooting him. On a personal level I do not feel that it was justified, but personal levels don't have any credence in the justice system.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Thank you for the link. I'll listen when I can.

I really wonder about the Bundys. I don't understand what they're thinking at all.... or maybe I do and that's why I don't trust them. No more than the feds actually. For now, I will put my hope and faith in the Pacific Patiot Networks, and the Constitutional Sheriffs up there, to help keep it from turning into a free-for-all. They seem to be the only ones with the heart and the brains to keep the peace and bring about a peaceful solution.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Hi TA,

I am only following this thread from afar, it all appears a bit too Hollywood and distant for me! From what i have read, it does appear that wrongs have been committed by all sides but particularly by the EPA and the Feds (run up to this whole situation rather than blaming them for the shooting).

However, i have to disagree that because their testimonies matched then they must obviously be telling the truth. It certainly raises the probability that they are telling the truth but it certainly doesn't confirm anything one way or the way.

Supporters could argue it indicates the truth. The opposing side could equally argue that they have predetermined their statements so that they match.

Witness testimonies are only reliable when backed up with corroborating evidence.

a reply to: Indigo5

Bro, you are taking a tiny 2 second clip out of context. Shots fired before he went down, when he went down, and after he went down. I think you are intentionally ignoring parts of the story. Are you saying she did NOT say that shots were fired through the windshield and after he exited the vehicle with his hands up? Are you saying she said he was NOT shot with his hands up?

a reply to: Slanter

I am not, he lied about what the video contained and I corrected him.

a reply to: kkrattiger

According to the two women they were shot at when the stopped the first time, prompting them to drive away. They were attempting to get to local authority who no doubt was their ally.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

Bro, you are taking a tiny 2 second clip out of context. Shots fired before he went down, when he went down, and after he went down. I think you are intentionally ignoring parts of the story. Are you saying she did NOT say that shots were fired through the windshield and after he exited the vehicle with his hands up? Are you saying she said he was NOT shot with his hands up?

I am saying she answered the question repeatedly and specifically. 3 quick shots and he immediately went down. Pop, Pop, Pop...pause...3 more pop pop pop....when he was down.

Was the vehicle shot at before then? probably...

But in the timeline of him exiting the vehicle until when he died...3 quick shots and he immediately goes down...no shots before that between the time he exits and the time he goes down...

That is what the FBI says...that is what she says...clearly and repeatedly when questioned again by the interviewer just to be sure.

So the claims that his 3 reaches across for his waist ...the first of which occurred as he was still treading through the snow from the vehicle to his final position are responses to gunshots does not align with either Victoria's very clear statements or the FBI's.

The zoomed in slo-mo video on this thread also makes it very clear he has both hands engaged in those reaches..left hand moving his unzipped jacket out of the way and right hand reaching across.

So specifically responding to your claim that he was reaching down to grasp a gunshot wound at his waist-line where his gun was? Victoria says there were no gun shots during that time...pop pop pop and he immediately goes down where he was standing...He repeatedly reached before reaching that position.

The second three shots were after he was down. If you watch the video his arm reaches out after he is the snow. They are taking no chances.

Was the car shot at during the first stop? I doubt it since the other arrestees and those that were released from vehicle #1 had clear view of LaVoys vehicle before he fled and none of them reporting seeing or hearing any gunfire on that vehicle.

Was the car shot at when it approached the roadblock or when it hit the snow bank? Probably, with the aim of disabling the vehicle. I think Ryan Bundy got hit in the arm because he was down on the floor as he describes and a bullet aimed at the tires penetrated the wheel-well.

a reply to: Indigo5

I said gunshots or EXISTING WOUNDS. If you had been shot and were running that's what you do...

Again, you seem to be attempting with quite a lot of vigor to change the narrative of what we hear in the interviews and what we see in the video.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't think he was reaching in his pocket. His jacked was fully zipped. I think he was clutching a wound. I think he was being shot while he was running with his hands up causing him to grab his body.

And to be clear....Since you accused me of lying here..

(A) His jacket was unzipped...this is indisputable in the zoomed in slo-mo video on this thread, if you have not watched it or would like to continue to disagree I will hunt it down and repost it. Let me know.

(B) "I think he was clutching a wound. I think he was being shot while he was running with his hands up" Victoria was specific in her description and repeated herself when questioned. He was not shot at while running..3 quick shots, pop, pop, pop and he immediately dropped and went down, no shots prior to that after he exited the vehicle.
Again...let me know if you would like me to cite exact words and place in the video interview where this is explained, questioned and explained again ...very clearly

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

I said gunshots or EXISTING WOUNDS. If you had been shot and were running that's what you do...

.

I quoted you above...You said he was clutching wounds from gunshots he received while running with his hands up.

What are you changing your claim to now?

a reply to: Indigo5

Since you can't even read the quote:

I think he was clutching a wound

Then it is no wonder you are having so much trouble with this.

Full video...Fast forward to 5:49 for Lavoy exiting the vehicle. He reaches for his waist near immediately while moving to his final position and during a time that Victoria says no shots are being fired. The shots are quick succession, pop, pop, pop and he goes down immediately. In the video you see him reaching before he stops and as he is walking quickly through the snow.



Jacket unzipped. reaching across to waistline

a reply to: beyondtruth

Instead of saying OP as in original post I should have stated by the OP Original Poster.

I think -- I hope! -- you got that backwards... that you should have specified original "post" as opposed to "poster"... but it's okay. I don't want to nitpick. I'd rather just take you at your word in the spirit intended. I have often bemoaned the fact that "OP" can be read two ways, and especially in this case, because any reference to "she" could have referred to either myself as the original poster, or Victoria Sharp as the subject of the original post.

Regarding the subject matter at hand, no matter how one looks at it, the undeniable truth is that whoever designed this enforcement action created a death trap, putting everyone (including officers) in danger, and guaranteeing that Finicum's "proximity" would "justify" lethal force. This is unconscionable and unacceptable. I expect -- and demand -- that our taxpayer funded LEOs do everything possible to protect life -- yes, even the lives of "criminals" -- and to use lethal force only as an absolute last resort.

I do believe Shawna and Victoria, in large part because of the preceding and subsequent actions of the FBI, including the release of this seriously flawed video (dare I say snuff film???) for public consumption. But I understand that is simply my belief... for now. And as long as the authorities refuse to release the evidence that will further support or belie their statements (for example, releasing the vehicle for public display and examination), then they are only confirming my worst fears.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

Since you can't even read the quote:

I think he was clutching a wound

Then it is no wonder you are having so much trouble with this.

Ahh...so now you are morphing the claim to it was some wound received prior to him exiting the vehicle? Don't you find your own full post inconvenient in that attempt?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't think he was reaching in his pocket. His jacked was fully zipped. I think he was clutching a wound. I think he was being shot while he was running with his hands up causing him to grab his body.

Next ...as we follow your ever changing claim...we can ponder why and how a man with a serious gut shot (by your claim) is able to leap out of the vehicle quickly and move as quickly as he does...and feels the need to shout "just shoot me" when he has already been profoundly shot?

Am I the only one that finds it disturbing that this militia narrative began with "Witness Proof" by the bundites that LaVoy was "Executed" while "Surrendering" "Unarmed" and "On his knees"???

What I see is an ever evolving claim to fit a preconceived narrative of martyrdom...

Reality matters...it really does..Reality cares not what you want to be true.

a reply to: Indigo5

I had not seen that zoomed in video before. When I saw the normal version I saw a bulky snow jacket with black sleeves, a grey body and a thick black stripe running down the zipper...

This version made me search images for him and he does not appear to have such a jacket and seemed to wear a camo snow jacket.

I still stand by my idea that he could have been clutching wounds.

a reply to: Indigo5

*Edit*Redacted, but to be clear:

My first post in the thread:

When people say he was reaching in his jacket I believe he was actually grasping wounds

One of my first posts in the thread:

She also said he could have been already hit as a bunch of shots came through the windshield

we can ponder why and how a man with a serious gut shot (by your claim) is able to leap out of the vehicle quickly and move as quickly as he does...and feels the need to shout "just shoot me" when he has already been profoundly shot?

Adrenaline works in mysterious ways.

a reply to: Indigo5

What I see is an ever evolving claim to fit a preconceived narrative of martyrdom...

And what I see is a man who was "funneled" into a death trap and those with absolutely no visible respect for his life making every excuse possible for his killlers.

We can speculate till the cows come home about what Mr. Finicum may or may not be doing, have done, or would do. But we know for an absolute fact that he was killed by law enforcement agents in a situation they created. While you seem to find that not only acceptable, but worthy of praise and applause, I find it despicable and unconscionable.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5

What I see is an ever evolving claim to fit a preconceived narrative of martyrdom...

And what I see is a man who was "funneled" into a death trap and those with absolutely no visible respect for his life making every excuse possible for his killlers.

Hyperbole and emotion. I doubt any of those officers were gleefully planning a murder. To the contrary in order to follow through on his declaration that he would never be taken alive, he had to flee the police, nearly ram a road block, jump out of the vehicle and repeatedly reach for his gun while shouting "Just shoot me".

We can speculate till the cows come home about what Mr. Finicum may or may not be doing, have done, or would do.

Or we can examine evidence and video.

But we know for an absolute fact that he was killed by law enforcement agents in a situation they created.

Law enforcement is required to enforce the law. He had a felony warrant out for his arrest and law enforcement gave him weeks of opportunity to peacefully negotiate a surrender..That is virtually unprecedented. I see no way this scenario can be described as a "scenario" law enforcement created. Frankly given everything that led up to this and the patience that was afforded...that is outrageous.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5

What I see is an ever evolving claim to fit a preconceived narrative of martyrdom...

And what I see is a man who was "funneled" into a death trap and those with absolutely no visible respect for his life making every excuse possible for his killlers.

We can speculate till the cows come home about what Mr. Finicum may or may not be doing, have done, or would do. But we know for an absolute fact that he was killed by law enforcement agents in a situation they created. While you seem to find that not only acceptable, but worthy of praise and applause, I find it despicable and unconscionable.

Wait.. I'm sorry to say but this does not hold water.

You say that Finicum was in a situation that the authorities created, but that's just not true. Finicum put himself in that situation the day he came to Oregon and joined the standoff. No one forced Finicum to get involved and threaten authorities by stating that he would not be taken alive. He put himself in the perilous situation and frankly no one should be surprised that someone dies after taking off from police and leading them on a high speed chase before crashing into a roadblock.

Spot on Indigo

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5

What I see is an ever evolving claim to fit a preconceived narrative of martyrdom...

And what I see is a man who was "funneled" into a death trap and those with absolutely no visible respect for his life making every excuse possible for his killlers.

Hyperbole and emotion. I doubt any of those officers were gleefully planning a murder. To the contrary in order to follow through on his declaration that he would never be taken alive, he had to flee the police, nearly ram a road block, jump out of the vehicle and repeatedly reach for his gun while shouting "Just shoot me".

We can speculate till the cows come home about what Mr. Finicum may or may not be doing, have done, or would do.

Or we can examine evidence and video.

But we know for an absolute fact that he was killed by law enforcement agents in a situation they created.

Law enforcement is required to enforce the law. He had a felony warrant out for his arrest and law enforcement gave him weeks of opportunity to peacefully negotiate a surrender..That is virtually unprecedented. I see no way this scenario can be described as a "scenario" law enforcement created. Frankly given everything that led up to this and the patience that was afforded...that is outrageous.