Breaking: Lavoy Finicum Tased By OSP Implicates Murder By The Feds

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

Pause the video at 05:48. Just in front of the truck, left hand side. You see a black patch on the left. It looks like it continues across the road from left to right at an angle. At least thats what it looks like to me. Spike strips arent designed to be flashy / bright etc.

When he gets close to the black part he quickly swerves to the left. The officer he almost hit looks like he was prepping for an impact between the truck and the police vehicle on the left. Looks like he was directly behind his vehicle.

Also after finicum goes left watch the vehicle pursuing him. Notice he stops just prior to the black area I was talking about.

Maybe it's just my old eyes but try as I might I can't see any strips in the road at the 5:48 mark. What I do see by pausing again at 5:49 and 5:50 is that the agent is heading toward the vehicle which is already fully off the road. If he thought he was going to be hit, why in the devil wasn't he running the other way instead of toward the way the truck was so obviously traveling?

A fellow has done an excellent analysis of this incident frame by frame.
towardsabetterworld.com...
towardsabetterworld.com...

Please note that between 5:45 and 5:46, his break lights come on---when the road block appears before him---and stay on until the truck stops suddenly in the snow. Who applies their brakes if they are attempting to run a roadblock?

Looks pretty clear to me.

a reply to: diggindirt

Yet the vehicle that was following him manages to stop without hitting anything better driver??

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
and that fact doesn't change the fact that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot to death.

So you think police should wait until a nutter like Finicum draws a weapon and shoots at police before they can shoot him....
Funny how some people are upset police expect to be able to go home at the end of the day, instead of standing around waiting for a nutter to shoot them!

Was it right prossedure for the agent to move in on the suspect pressumed armed.... all by him selv?

The agent who approached the subject who was clearly surrendering. Put himself in direct danger, when he approached the suspect in the open like that.

Why didnt they try to controll the situation from the cover of the cars? The victim was in the open and direct line of sight for all of the agents and troppers.


In a way i feel sorry for Americans who think this event is justified. I dont live in the US so i dont have to put up With this kind of brutal authority. But you americans do. I Guess its not hard to see how the future is going to be.

a reply to: dragonridr
Knowing where the roadblock was set up didn't have anything to do with it? Levoy didn't know he was heading for a road blocked by LEO vehicles. The LEOs chasing him knew quite well. What's so hard to figure out about that?

a reply to: buddha

he look't to me like he was emptying his pockets.
the cop would have told him to do this.

My impression also. They asked him for ID, or if he was armed.

Who are you, got ID?

Yes.

Lets see it.

Reaches---

a reply to: spy66

Exactly. Police are trained to remain behind cover and only approach when the subject is in full compliance face down on the ground.

To do otherwise places both in jeopardy, forcing the vulnerable officer to fire at the slightest suspicious movement on the part of the subject.

Convenient, that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

LOL ... talk about spin. First you're faulting me, now MSNBC ... it's like that old song by The Byrds.

The facts do not support your arguments, it's true.

You "wrote a reply" to a specific conversation between myself and another user. We were not discussing the general truth about what Mr. Fincum said, but specific claims that user had made about their own rendition of it. With all due respect, I have no need for what you consider "clarity" to be, as it seems to be a complex mixture of misinterpretation and psychic ability.

You keep making faulty arguments about Mr. Finicum's intentions that are not supported by the documented information that we have at hand, and I keep refuting them. It's true.

You continue to repeat a mantra that you apply to every situation. What you are doing is the farthest thing from "clarity" possible.

Ditto.

Blah blah blah. Whatever, dude.

You act as if you have some corner on the truth, as if hundreds of news outlets, numerous members here at ATS are all either unable or unwilling to see the facts as you see them.

That's essentially correct, though a gross overstatement on its face. Misinformation has been liberally applied, which I am counteracting. It's true.

You admit no bias and no possibility of error.

My argument that Mr. Finicum did not have a death wish is supported by the facts. Yours against is not.

Finicum said what he said. I listened to it, and I know what I heard. I have no reason to fabricate anything. Perhaps you don't either.

Well you keep adding the reporter's leading questioning and spin to Mr. Finicum's actual statements, contesting my argument that he did not have a death wish, so I'm going to keep refuting it until I wear this keyboard out (I've got a spare, too, so get used to it kiddo).

There is no doubt, however, that Finicum participated (and indeed was one of the leaders of) a staged armed occupation and shutdown of a government facility, and that is, whether anyone likes it or not, an illegal act, an oppressive act ... and indeed, in all interpretations both literal and legal ... a terrorist act.

Illegal, yes. Terrorism, I'd have to see the definition of the law, but I doubt it, as there was no violent action portrayed by these people. Violent, no. Oppressive? That's funny!

That is the fact that is beyond clear. To deny that is simply to deny reality.

See reply above.

originally posted by: centarix

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: centarix

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong again.

Caps lock all you want, doesn't change actual case law and court rulings.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Your opinion is based on the idea that government is the highest authority. Is government above me? Is government above you? Is government above God if you believe in God?

I consider God to be the authority on this matter and if I didn't I'd revert to the social contract which currently does not exist, so therefore would defer to me as an individual. I feel that God believes if a cop can shoot me for putting my hand in my pocket, I can shoot a cop for putting a hand in their pocket, because of equal rights.

However, that isn't the case. Cops are PAID BIG MONEY to take risks, so they need to see the gun before they shoot if they want to be considered a good person. That is their job. If they are not going to take risks, they are cowards and not special at all. Since I don't expect God to issue me a written edict on this matter, I'll go with my gut as you do too.

Yes it may be legal for cops to murder everyone who sticks their hand in their pocket. But that doesn't make doing so right as you imply.

I liked your thoughts here and I agree. Whether it's legal or not doesn't make it right.

a reply to: TheTory

Oh, and sorry Mr. TheTory if I highjacked your argument. Was not my intent.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: diggindirt
Need to ask a question here. Would a taser actually be effective in this case? With all the clothing Levoy must have been wearing? That looks a lot like a Carhartt jacket. Those things are tough and thick. Would the prongs of the taser actually penetrate that?

After going looking for videos of people actually being tased when not expecting it, I could find only this one that clearly shows the reaction to being tased. Seems to be much the same reaction as to being shot.
www.youtube.com...
The tasing happens after the 40 second mark. The victim grabs at her side.


Will be interesting to see if indeed a taser was deployed and if it was equipped with a camera.

Headshot offers the most exposed skin, in my opinion, so seems most liklely. The agent that was downrange of the other on screen agents was pretty close...otherwise I guess you'd go with multiple taser shots and it's iffy with a body shot that you're going to bring him down with any one shot, in my unprofessional opinion.

Law enforcement has access to cartridges that are not available to the general public. These include extended range in addition to probes that can penetrate heavier layers of clothing. A taser probe does not have to penetrate skin to work. The discharge can arc up to 2+ inches of clothing.

Second - The taser is more effective when there is distance between the 2 probes. A Taser cartridge is designed where 1 probe fires level and the second probe is set at a slight angle, creating the spread between the probes.

If contact by 1 probe is weak the typical result will change, going from the 5 seconds of inability to move to something less. If one probe fails the option left is to close the distance and touch the tip of taser itself to a part of the suspects body. This closes the circuit, resulting in a correct result.

The secondary function of a taser is whats called a drive stun. Without the probes (just touching the tip of the taser to a part of the body) does not create the same results as the probes. It falls under pain compliance.

The wires attach to the probes aren't indestructible and can break.

Most agencies have guidelines / policy & procedures that allow the use of less lethal only when another officer is present and capable of a lethal response. If the probes failed the officer would be required to close the distance to hands on range, which was not an option.

Training for tasers, just like duty weapons, does not train for head shots. Like duty weapons, we are trained to aim center mass. The taser probes can penetrate skin, cartridge and in some instances bone. The goal of a taser is to gain control over a non-compliant individual. Aiming for "sensitive" areas can result in losing an eye or other permanent damage, which is not the goal.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: centarix

See how well that "argument" holds up in court. I'm sure it'll turn out marvelously.

I know what a ridiculous argument. I was citing my belief in democracy, equal rights, and the fact we delegate our authority to government, a concept you find disagree with because as a cult member of an organization you have no real contract with (signed, written, and terms negotiated by both parties), you cannot understand an argument to allow you to have a consistent and reasonable position on this matter. Your belief is that the collective is God and you are their slave. Fine. You move to California where your ideas prevail, and I'll move to New Hampshire. Our outlooks on life are literally incompatible. You want to murder me for putting my hand near my pocket, and I want to be left alone. So, please stay away from me.

Look, I *understand* your position, but you don't understand mine. As proven by the "argument" in quote marks you provide. And I understand we can't live together peacefully, but you don't seem to understand that.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

No offense X, but why bother?

Not enough info = coverup.

Information = lies. And coverup.

Eyewitness account = irrefutable, absolute proof.

Minds are already made up. This isn't even really a discussion anymore.

Apparently yours is made up as well, despite not being enough info, shoddy information at best, ignoring eyewitness accounts, you do not want a discussion, you think its slam dunked from the beginning,

Why do you even bother ?

Nothing I've seen or read gives any indication that Finicum was murdered. It's all supposition and rhetoric and spliced videos that are refuted by the original video that was released. When somebody can produce actual evidence of a murder, I'll accept it. That's how an open mind works, by looking at actual evidence and not slapped together "evidence."

Try it sometime.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: diggindirt

Yet the vehicle that was following him manages to stop without hitting anything better driver??

No because they knew the road block was ahead
so they slow down a bit before the corner

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

Pause the video at 05:48. Just in front of the truck, left hand side. You see a black patch on the left. It looks like it continues across the road from left to right at an angle. At least thats what it looks like to me. Spike strips arent designed to be flashy / bright etc.

When he gets close to the black part he quickly swerves to the left. The officer he almost hit looks like he was prepping for an impact between the truck and the police vehicle on the left. Looks like he was directly behind his vehicle.

Also after finicum goes left watch the vehicle pursuing him. Notice he stops just prior to the black area I was talking about.

I'd studied that spot you point out on different excerpts of the FBI video before and ended up being undecided about the spike strip being there. To me, (not that I have any experience setting up spike strips) it seems rather close to the cars forming the roadblock. Too close for comfort from my bird's eye view after the fact.

One other thing for now. I initially thought the officer behind the cruiser dove out of the way but after seeing him over and over in slow motion in different examples of the same part of the video, it now looks to me like he was mock charging towards LaVoy's truck to make him swerve even harder to the left. LaVoy's vehicle almost tipped over and was on two wheels for a second before the other two wheels came back down in the snow.

Thank you!!

a reply to: centarix

I'll thank you in advance for not telling me what I think. You're not in my head, nor are you welcome to try and get there. I have literally zero desire to murder you or anybody else, but I thank you for so eloquently displaying your "side's" complete inability to have a discussion without resorting to wildly over the top hyperbole and rhetoric.

I'm quite happy to leave you alone. You've given ample evidence why it's in everybody's best interest to avoid you at all costs.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

No offense X, but why bother?

Not enough info = coverup.

Information = lies. And coverup.

Eyewitness account = irrefutable, absolute proof.

Minds are already made up. This isn't even really a discussion anymore.

Apparently yours is made up as well, despite not being enough info, shoddy information at best, ignoring eyewitness accounts, you do not want a discussion, you think its slam dunked from the beginning,

Why do you even bother ?

Nothing I've seen or read gives any indication that Finicum was murdered. It's all supposition and rhetoric and spliced videos that are refuted by the original video that was released. When somebody can produce actual evidence of a murder, I'll accept it. That's how an open mind works, by looking at actual evidence and not slapped together "evidence."

Try it sometime.

To be fair isnt hands above ones head the universal sign of I give up dont shoot? And really If the cops want to make you look guilty they can by careful manipulation such as Asking you to reach for something in your pocket.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Nothing I've seen or read gives any indication that Finicum was murdered. It's all supposition and rhetoric and spliced videos that are refuted by the original video that was released. When somebody can produce actual evidence of a murder, I'll accept it. That's how an open mind works, by looking at actual evidence and not slapped together "evidence."

Try it sometime.

I'm pretty open minded, I think the original video clearly shows murder.... not once in that vid did we see Finicum as a threat to those federal tyrants... to me Finicum looks more like a hero... drawing fire away from the truck, saving the occupants and swerving the truck to save that stupid cop.

Those Keystone Kops are thugs and murders... the only evidence we need is the original aerial video.... I'm 100% sure there is ground audio being withheld that would send these thugs to the gallows...

originally posted by: imitator
the only evidence we need is the original aerial video

That shows the nutter running from the police, getting out of his truck after crashing it and constantly reaching down to where he had a gun....

So not murder, more suicide by cop!

a reply to: Xcathdra

Here is a screen shot at 5:48 of the video you posted.

Could you please point out the strips across the road ? Just an arrow to them will be fine or circle them so those of us who don't have eagle eyes can see them. Not matter how much I zoom in, I can't see anything across the road.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Probably not a headshot, then, in your opinion? More likely center of mass with wintertime probes then? Okay. Appreciate the clarification.