'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore

@Spy66

Police arent trained to shoot people yelling just shoot me. We are trained to stop the threat taking into account totality of circumstances.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Are the police trained to approach a suspect like they did if they assume the suspect is armed?

Are the police trained to leave the barricad's cover and approached a presumed armed suspect in the open?

Isnt that a Big... no,no?

originally posted by: spy66
Are the police trained to approach a suspect like they did if they assume the suspect is armed?

Short answer - police eye all situations as a potential problem regardless of how benign it looks. Its called officer safety.

It depends on training and departmental policy. Personally speaking my training for armed "suspects" is to approach with caution with my duty weapon in hand. If there is more than one officer policy allows the use of a taser but the other officer must be capable of using deadly force in case the tasers does not hit / work correctly; all of which is dependent on totality of circumstances.

To be honest your question is difficult to answer because of the x factor / variables involved that are experienced by the officer. Each situation is unique so whats acceptable for one incident might be wholly inappropriate for a similar incident.

If you change "suspect" with "person" you get a similar response albeit different.

originally posted by: spy66
Are the police trained to leave the barricad's cover and approached a presumed armed suspect in the open?

Isnt that a Big... no,no?
Depends on the agency, their policies, level of training, surrounding environment, number of officers present, specialized unit availability.

The other thing to take into account is law enforcement policies. They are not standardized, and in general, unlike the military a municipal police sergeant has no authority to direct a corporal with state police. Some agencies allow the use of a taser for X situation where the sheriff's office in the same county don't. If they work a call together the respective policies for both agencies apply (Again in general).

So in this situation OSP were the ones to discharge their weapon so they will look at why it happened and were the state police within their departmental policies.

There are always exceptions and I have come across very very limited situations where 2 agencies get into a pissing match over who is running the show (there are a lot of situations where you have a lead agency though and it comes down in part to jurisdiction).

Any other long winded responses I can give you

a reply to: Xcathdra


I see. I suspect you dont have HRT or Counter terrorist traning (CQC) traning since you answered in this maner.

- I just want to point out that this was not a ordinary roadblock, it was a barricade. It is defined as use of physical leathal force.

To be issued to be allowed to use such force, you have to have offisers who are specifically trained to use such a barricade.

Here is where the FBI comes in. They have People who are properly trianed to use this kind of Barricade. But, it was not FBI who manned the barricade, according to FBI statment. And it was not FBI who brought Down the suspect.

- How do i know that the offiser who approached Robert did not have proper traning to handle this type of situation?

1. He left his cover all alone. Mistake number 1.

2. He exposed himself to immidate danger by walking right past the back of the suspects Truck which there were 3 more pressumed armed suspects. Mistake number 2.

3. He exposed himself to immidiate danger by apporaching the suspect up Close and in the open all alone. At this point the offiser was exposed to danger from two different threat's at the same time. 1, the suspect 2, the individuals inside the truck. Mistake number 3.

-This is a big big No No. Just watch the video and see how he exposes himself by standing all alone between two threat's.

4. The offiser who approached the suspect up close put the offiser stationed behind the suspect in his line of fire. Mistake number 4.

5. The offiser who had ingaged the suspect, moved back to the barricade by walking right past the back end of truck a second time without even looking at it. And without having his weapon on any of the threat's. He even puts his back to the suspect and brings his weapon all the way Down as he moves back to cover.

Dont tell me that some agency's practise this kind of tacktic.... please. The onle angency who does this are the once who dont have proper training.

originally posted by: spy66
I see. I suspect you dont have HRT or Counter terrorist traning (CQC) traning since you answered in this maner.

lol ok.

originally posted by: spy66
- I just want to point out that this was not a ordinary roadblock, it was a barricade. It is defined as use of physical leathal force.

To be issued to be allowed to use such force, you have to have offisers who are specifically trained to use such a barricade.

Not really no...

A checkpoint is set up in a manner that traffic can still move forward. A roadblock is just that - it blocks the road in such a way traffic cannot proceed. Because their is no avenue of travel it is defined as a deadly force situation.

originally posted by: spy66
Here is where the FBI comes in. They have People who are properly trianed to use this kind of Barricade. But, it was not FBI who manned the barricade, according to FBI statment. And it was not FBI who brought Down the suspect.

Really? Specifically what training would that be? Secondly it was OSP who fired, as I stated.

originally posted by: spy66
- How do i know that the offiser who approached Robert did not have proper traning to handle this type of situation?

1. He left his cover all alone. Mistake number 1.

Mistake? no
Risk? yes

originally posted by: spy66
2. He exposed himself to immidate danger by walking right past the back of the suspects Truck which there were 3 more pressumed armed suspects. Mistake number 2.

The most immediate threat is the person outside the vehicle. If im not mistaken you also had agents / officers watching the truck as well. So no mistake - their training was sound as were their tactics. The people in the truck presented the lesser threat since their field of fire / movement was restricted.

originally posted by: spy66
3. He exposed himself to immidiate danger by apporaching the suspect up Close and in the open all alone. At this point the offiser was exposed to danger from two different threat's at the same time. 1, the suspect 2, the individuals inside the truck. Mistake number 3. This is a big big No No. Just watch the video and see how he exposes himself by standing all alone between two threat's.

Cops expose themselves to danger the moment they put the uniform on for the first time. In dangerous situations, even with other agency / officers present we arent familiar with, there is a trust that they have each others backs.

So again not really. What we are seeing in the video is not showing the surrounding area. OSP said they had people in the woods. The goal is to stop / contain the person outside the vehicle. He is the more serious threat.

originally posted by: spy66
4. The offiser who approached the suspect up close put the offiser stationed behind the suspect in his line of fire. Mistake number 4.

Nope - A tactical decision to try to end the scenario peacefully. The officer who approached cleared line of fire immediately.

originally posted by: spy66
5. The offiser who had ingaged the suspect, moved back to the barricade by walking right past the back end of truck a second time without even looking at it. And without having his weapon on any of the treat's. He even puts his back to the suspect and brings his weapon all the way Down as he moves back to cover.

So you know he nor anyone else werent paying attention?

originally posted by: spy66
Dont tell me that some agency's practise this kind of tacktic.... please. The onle angency who does this are the once who dont have proper training.

and you would be wrong again. Training differs from state to state and agency to agency.

Your "analysis" tells me you are the one who does not know what they are talking about. If you did you wouldnt be making incorrect assumptions about procedures.


Finally - You would know that 20/20 hindsight cannot be used to review police use of force. Its what the officer perceived when force was used.

a reply to: Xcathdra



Come on Xcathdra, you might be a cop. But dont be stupid. I am an instructor within HRT and CQC training. I have been a operator since 1992 until 2006.

I have been giving you more details then i should. It is Clear you have no Insight into Our world.

a reply to: spy66

For? State? Federal?
As a civilian? police? military?

I am going to guess Federal. It explains your lack of familiarity with uniformed operations.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

For? State? Federal?

I am going to guess Federal. It explains you lack of familiarity with uniformed operations.

Just for the record, from the point of a third-party observer, the differences between the depth and quality of your comments on the situation and those of others is like night and day. You speak from specific experience in training, simulations and actual real-life situations, others ... not so much.

Thanks for your fact-based contributions to the discussion!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

For? State? Federal?

I am going to guess Federal. It explains you lack of familiarity with uniformed operations.

Everyone who attends HRT, CQC and roadblock(s)/barricade training learn the same basic prinsipals. You know this since you have attended this type of training?

a reply to: spy66

Yet it was not the question I asked.

For? State? Federal?
As a civilian? police? military?

I am going to guess Federal. It explains you lack of familiarity with uniformed operations.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Yet it was not the question I asked.

For? State? Federal?
As a civilian? police? military?

I am going to guess Federal. It explains you lack of familiarity with uniformed operations.

I am not going to answer that question.

a reply to: spy66

Thats what I thought.

nice try.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Thats what I thought.

nice try.

This is a Public forum. So you dont have to intimidate.

What you can do is show what i have been saying to someone you know have Insight into these Things. And they will probably tell you that, i am not just putting Things out there.

a reply to: spy66

Intimidate? You made claims and assertions and refused to support the claim by answering a simple question that reveals nothing about you personally all the while going after me.

You made the claims and can't support it and got called out

Thats your problem, not mine.

Mayne next time think before making accusations / claims, especially in an area you don't know what your talking about.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Intimidate? You made claims and assertions and refused to support the claim by answering a simple question that reveals nothing about you personally all the while going after me.

You made the claims and can't support it and got called out

Thats your problem, not mine.

Mayne next time think before making accusations / claims, especially in an area you don't know what your talking about.

Listen.

I know you dont have Insight into this and you know it, so stop being stupid. Since you cant be honest i dont want to tell you anything about me.


- You dont have experiance With roadblocks, since you didnt know this roadblock is defined as a barricade.

- You dont have experiance With HRT tackitcs, CQC tacktic or any Advanced tacktical solutions implimented With a barricade of this type.... since you answered this yesterday.

The most immediate threat is the person outside the vehicle. If im not mistaken you also had agents / officers watching the truck as well. So no mistake - their training was sound as were their tactics.

Only a person who dont have training or Insight would say this. And you dont have this kind of training therefor you would state something like this. Your are not qualified to talk about this.

All the offisers were behind the truck from a rear right angle, The trucks Windows from that angle are tinted and dirty. Dont tell me that he was covered by the other offisers as he walked past the rear end of the truck.
The offiser trying to get up from the ditch, walked to cover With his back to the truck. Who in their right mind would do that?

Then you go on With this:

Cops expose themselves to danger the moment they put the uniform on for the first time. In dangerous situations, even with other agency / officers present we arent familiar with, there is a trust that they have each others backs.

There is a right way to do this and a wrong way. What this one offiser did was wrong. If you had any Insight into this kind of tacktic you would never have answered like this. There is a difference between blind trust and actuall trust. Actuall trust is confirmation. All cops are instructed to rely on actuall trust, not blind trust. Blind trust can get you hurt or killed. That is like saying i thought you had me covered.

a reply to: spy66

You are full of it - plain and simple. From your inability to read / understand posts to having no basic understanding of law enforcement / patrol operations. Let alone trying to argue specialized FBI training for roadblocks, which you have still failed to explain it / link to the training source.


I stand by my posts and back it up with facts / sources. You make claims yet refuse to answer basic questions.

You have not and your still trying to convince me you are legitimate - which is now becoming just sad to watch.
If you are an "instructor" as you claim (and I dont believe you are) I would urge the people who attended your sessions to get a refund before they walk themselves into a 42-83 violation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I stand by my posts and back it up with facts / sources. You make claims yet refuse to answer basic questions.

Please grow up. You havent backed up anything With facts or Sources when it comes to what we have been talking about.

I have been telling you that you dont have Insight or training related to this event. And that is a plain fact.

originally posted by: spy66
I have been telling you that you dont have Insight or training related to this event.

WTF are tackitcs?
WTF is a offisers
What does ingaged mean?
Is onle even a word? What does it mean?
What are prinsipals?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Intimidate? You made claims and assertions and refused to support the claim by answering a simple question that reveals nothing about you personally all the while going after me.

You made the claims and can't support it and got called out

Thats your problem, not mine.

Mayne next time think before making accusations / claims, especially in an area you don't know what your talking about.

yadda, yadda, yadda,


we all know why you asked that question. An attempt to diminish, somehow, this person's training as being valid or not.

Deflection ...

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Xcathdra

I stand by my posts and back it up with facts / sources. You make claims yet refuse to answer basic questions.

Please grow up. You havent backed up anything With facts or Sources when it comes to what we have been talking about.

I have been telling you that you dont have Insight or training related to this event. And that is a plain fact.

It was obvious to me he had no training.

FTR, I have had no formal training in counter terrorism. I have, however, had formal training in Communication Law.

I know all the little secrets in how to convey a misleading message to get a desired result. especially in media.

Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered. The fact that there has been no audio, dashcam, bodycam footage is very .... VERY ... telling.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered.

If you actually watch the video you can clearly see he was not murdered!

The fact that there has been no audio, dashcam, bodycam footage is very .... VERY ... telling.

Yes, it is telling you there is a ongoing investigation.... or there is no such video and audio!