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

originally posted by: hellobruce

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!

If you actually watch the video, you can clearly see he was murdered!

Yes, it is telling you there is an ongoing investigation ... of themselves by themselves, don't be surprised if they determine they did nothing wrong. Clearly, there is audio and video of the event other than the one silent video that was released. All Oregon State Patrol vehicles are equipped with dashcams .... derp ... derp ... derp.

originally posted by: hellobruce

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!

Do you ever watch sports on tv? Have you ever seen the officials go to watch an instant replay? Have you ever known of them taking only one view of that play? Have you ever seen a play from one angle that convinced you of a certain fact only to see the same play from another angle and change your mind?
I saw one just tonight in a basketball game. One angle of the camera, from the ref's point of view clearly showed a foul was committed when one arm came into contact with another arm. Yet, from a different angle, across the court, the video clearly showed that no contact actually occurred.
How can you say that one angle of an edited, blurred video proves anything? It only offers proof of what you want to believe.
I don't blame you for wanting to believe that agents of our government would brutally murder a man for doing nothing more than exercising his Creator-given rights. I don't like believing it either because I don't want to be the next one shot down like a dog on the side of the road. The Cult of Authority, if they can convince you that it will never happen to you, you'll not oppose them.
Just remember that everything Hitler did was lawful and the people marching the undesirables into the camps were just following the law, just doing their job, enforcing the law.

a reply to: diggindirt

Hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review an officers use of force. It's what the officers perceived the moment force was used (and totality of circumstances).

If the other 2 resident geniuses in this thread are what they claim they are they both would know how it works instead of pushing a position thats not supported by facts. They would also know that under federal foia law enforcement investigative material is one of the nine exemptions listed.

If the investigation clears the officers (and it will btw) are you or the others going to accept that or will it be ignored and labeled some conspiracy?

If people want to understand then they must educate themselves instead of substituting law with their personal opinions.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

I asked the question to determine why his responses and observations were wrong. If you knew what you were talking about you would understand why I asked those questions.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Yes, yes, we understand that you adore the Cult of Authority. You couldn't have made it plainer.
In the world where that Cult rules, they are allowed to investigate themselves and clear themselves of all wrong-going because the Average Joe Citizen isn't smart enough or trained enough or submissive enough to possibly make any determination of right and wrong against a member of your Cult. Only other Cultists are worthy to judge the members of your Gang. We understand that is your position. You've made it abundantly clear.

It has already been proven beyond doubt by several experts in the field of video that the FBIs lied when they claimed to have released an unedited video. Why would any thinking citizen take their word as gospel?

a reply to: spy66

You tell me to grow up for asking you questions to support your claims / background? LOL.

Again you made claims you cannot support.

Do you "train" at the state level or federal level?
Are you a civilian? law enforcement (at either level)? military?
Are you even in the US / US citizen?

Still waiting on the barricade / roadblock info from your fraudulent claim.

The only thing you have proven is you have no clue as to what you are talking about. When you "grow up" and answer the questions then we can continue. Absent that I will continue to call you out.

a reply to: diggindirt

Cult of authority? lol...

Wrong again although one could point out the cult of ignorance you and the others are part of.

I am educated on the topic though. Something you and others should do so you can get an idea of what occurred.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

You tell me to grow up for asking you questions to support your claims / background? LOL.

Again you made claims you cannot support.

Do you "train" at the state level or federal level?
Are you a civilian? law enforcement (at either level)? military?
Are you even in the US / US citizen?

Still waiting on the barricade / roadblock info from your fraudulent claim.

The only thing you have proven is you have no clue as to what you are talking about. When you "grow up" and answer the questions then we can continue. Absent that I will continue to call you out.

You can ask, but you have no right to know anything personal about me. Not on a Public forum.

originally posted by: diggindirt
because I don't want to be the next one shot down like a dog on the side of the road.

Then do not act like a bogan when confronted by armed police, do what they say and do not reach for a gun.

everything Hitler did was lawful

So Hitler invading Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and the USSR was all lawful..... you really do not have any clue at all!

originally posted by: diggindirt
proven beyond doubt by several experts in the field of video that the FBIs lied when they claimed to have released an unedited video

Care to show us these "experts", who decided that they were experts?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

Hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review an officers use of force. It's what the officers perceived the moment force was used (and totality of circumstances).

We don't have this information (obviously). We don't know what kind of intel the officers were given beforehand while this whole op was being designed and discussed at least a few days beforehand, and we don't know what the officers truthfully perceived on the ground and what was being said.

It's redundant of me to say, but apparently you and Spy66 have undergone different types of training and don't see eye to eye on many points. I read both of your inputs with interest. A non-compromised jury would have to hear and see all evidence presented and decide what kind of killing it actually was, lawful or unlawful. Anyone with an ongoing bias for or against law enforcement or for or against LaVoy would have to be discounted.

The person who lost his mind and went nuts in Kansas yesterday, killing and wounding people at his place of employment, Cedric whatever his last name is, it's very clear that law enforcement had the right, the absolute duty, to shoot to kill him. I doubt anyone would question that act. There would be no conspiracy involved in that decision. The man was armed, dangerous, out of control, a severe threat and beyond any kind of rational response. He was intent upon killing as many people as he could and was caught up in his definition of a final solution.

It's not so clear cut with the killing of LaVoy, taking everything into consideration. Can you see what I am pointing out in this instance?

While I have refrained from calling it an outright murder because I have unanswered questions which may never be truthfully answered, I still don't think it was necessary to kill him.

Conspiracy is nothing new. It's not something made up by the people of today, by "whack jobs." It goes back into antiquity. Every organization which has power over others tends to become corrupt to a certain degree -- throughout history. It's a fact of history and things are no different now than they were during other periods of old.

I don't have issues with law enforcement in general. What I do have issue with is corruption at any level or in any branch. I don't believe the FBI has been completely truthful in their public disclosure of this killing. It may take 50 years for that to be proven true but that's where I'm at with all of this right now.

a reply to: spy66

Its not personal info. Its you telling us if you train at the state or federal level and if you are a civilian, an officer or military. The fact you keep refusing reinforces my earlier comment that you are not being truthful nor are you what you claim to be.

When you decide to support your claims I will engage in conversation. Until then there is no further reason to respond to you since you are being untruthful.

a reply to: tweetie

The FBI was not the agency that shot the threat - OSP did.

As for 2 different types of training I will say his "position" is false. What he is trying to claim is not law enforcement, at any level.

Considering they knew who was in the vehicles and the route they were taking I would say they had pretty good intel.

Law enforcement does not have to wait to be shot at before firing back. When a suspect ignores verbal commands and reaches into his pockets he creates justification for the use of deadly force.

When the police are pointing a gun at you, you comply. Trying to argue roadside with law enforcement is a non starter and its not the proper location nor the proper people. A court room and judge are.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tweetie

The FBI was not the agency that shot the threat - OSP did.

Yes, I know. I didn't state otherwise. The FBI released the video and took responsibility for it.

When the police are pointing a gun at you, you comply. Trying to argue roadside with law enforcement is a non starter and its not the proper location nor the proper people. A court room and judge are.

This part I can agree with though I can understand what was going on. Up until two days before LaVoy was killed he was on friendly terms with the FBI and other law enforcement and sought out discussion with them. He was trying to negotiate with them at the first stop still and the game had changed against him. He was no longer on the same footing. The error at that point was not turning off the truck and exiting the vehicle (as Victoria remembers these commands being given but Shawna does not) despite the truck being shot at and laser lights being focused on his head. Yes, I can agree it was a mistake on LaVoy's part and have thought so all along.

P.S. The reason I state the last paragraph is because I am putting myself in that position as a civilian.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

Its not personal info. Its you telling us if you train at the state or federal level and if you are a civilian, an officer or military. The fact you keep refusing reinforces my earlier comment that you are not being truthful nor are you what you claim to be.

When you decide to support your claims I will engage in conversation. Until then there is no further reason to respond to you since you are being untruthful.

It is not going to happen. I am not going to do that on this forum. It doesnt matter if you dont think i am giving you facts. The only way you would have known if i am giving facts is if you had Insight. And i am telling you again that you dont.

You have no idea about these kind of tacktics and why this was handled all wrong. So it doesnt matter if you think i am federal or state or a civilian. It wouldnt make any difference, you would still be clueless.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You have stated pretty clearly that you believe disputes about the "legality" of a "law" should be resolved in the courts. That sounds perfectly reasonable, right ? However this only works if we can trust the courts to be fair and reasonable. It seems that if something is the "Law" the judges will rule in favor of that "Law", regardless of the validity of that "Law". Meanwhile LEO's are enforcing these "laws" , in a heavy handed manner, because they are "Laws"....see the problem...what should people do ?

There is some shady and unethical "laws" / tactics being used to force people off their land and harass Rancher's and Farmer's. This whole thing was apparently sparked because 2 fellow Ranchers were thrown in prison for 5 years because of a controlled burn they did, I guess this is common for Rancher's to do, bordered or crossed over to the land in question. They were charged with Arson , although they claim they were just doing a routine burn to control weeds and underbrush.

In the Bundy standoff we saw an extreme show of force and destruction of property used against Bundy, who was one of last Rancher's not forced out by the BLM, then we hear these ridiculous claims this is about saving turtles, who live just fine with cows btw, and then we find out that a powerful politician , Reid,is involved in buying up this land.

I am obviously sympathetic to these Rancher's and think there are some sinister agenda's at work here to take lands, farms and ranches away from private owners. It's a complicated subject, but it's all apart of Agenda 21. It is very sad this man died, it should be investigated and I hope his death at least brings awareness to the cause he ultimately died for......the MSM wants us to believe these are just a bunch of gun toting nuts, but they tried to use legal means to resolve this.

I'm curious to ask, as a LEO are there any laws you would refuse to enforce? Have you ever had to enforce a law you personally felt was morally wrong ?

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Dismissing judges, police and politicians en masse for the actions of a few is also a problem. The 2 people were found guilty by a jury and their own family members testified against them (and their testimony was not thrown out, contrary to the lies some people are pushing).

The Bundy's are believers in the myth the federal government cant own land and no matter the evidence showing they are wrong they insist on ignoring the parts of the constitution and the law that says otherwise. They got involved in Oregon because they are clueless about the law / constitution and think the 2 guys were victims of double jeopardy and other untrue nonsense.

The Bundy's have gone on record stating they never used the courts to make their argument using the same flawed logic that the entire system is corrupt. Had they tried to use the system instead of making excuses why they didnt they might have some credibility. When they also go on record stating they dont recognize the federal government we hit the realm that in order to prove their case they are doing all they can to remove the parts of the system that do not support their claims / agenda.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

I asked the question to determine why his responses and observations were wrong. If you knew what you were talking about you would understand why I asked those questions.

Ha! that was almost funny. Clearly, one of us knows what we are talking about and it isn't you.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MountainLaurel

... The 2 people were found guilty by a jury and their own family members testified against them (and their testimony was not thrown out, contrary to the lies some people are pushing).

...

Could you support that statement, using the plural---family members---with some link that shows that family members other than the mentally disturbed teenager testified against them? The transcript I saw posted in another thread showed that the only family member to testify against them was a grandson/nephew who was mentally ill at the time and angry with his grandfather and uncle for disciplining him. Seeking revenge, as teenagers often do when their wrongdoing is punished, he went to the authorities with a made-up story about poaching and setting fires.
The Hammonds never denied setting the fires, only the reason for the fires. They said it was a controlled burn, the feds took the mentally disturbed kid's story and ran with it because the mentally disturbed prosecutor was formerly a social worker who couldn't find a way to punish the Hammond men for disciplining their out-of-control, mentally ill grandson/nephew. They made him walk 5 miles, home from a nearby town. She did not approve of the discipline and brought the charges for arson.
If there were other family members who testified against them, please post the link.

The Bundys aren't the subject of this thread, Lavoy Finicum's shooting is the subject. Lavoy was in Oregon to attempt to help the ranching families there understand their rights and stand against the tyranny. He paid for that stance with his life because the feds saw the education movement going on as a protest that they "feared would spread to other counties." crooksandliars.com...
Imagine! A bunch of people teaching the Constitution and the history of the Constitution---spreading to another county! How terrible to spread the truth---gotta be stopped obviously. Could be deadly to the lawless feds.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

Hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review an officers use of force. It's what the officers perceived the moment force was used (and totality of circumstances).

If the other 2 resident geniuses in this thread are what they claim they are they both would know how it works instead of pushing a position thats not supported by facts. They would also know that under federal foia law enforcement investigative material is one of the nine exemptions listed.

If the investigation clears the officers (and it will btw) are you or the others going to accept that or will it be ignored and labeled some conspiracy?

If people want to understand then they must educate themselves instead of substituting law with their personal opinions.

If I were you I wouldn't count on being protected by the court when using unreasonable force. Just this morning the newspaper reported that a federal judge in Kentucky has ruled that excessive force was used in a situation that sounds quite a bit like the Finicum case.
www.bgdailynews.com...

A Bowling Green police officer used excessive force when he fatally shot a man on the railroad tracks on Clay Street in 2012, a federal judge ruled.

Casada, who left the BGPD in 2014, and Sgt. Donitka Kay encountered Harrison on the railroad tracks near 11th Avenue shortly after Harrison had called BGPD headquarters and then 911 and threatened to kill his brother. According to court records, he mentioned having a gun during the second phone call but was found to be unarmed after he had been shot.
The encounter between Harrison and the police lasted about 12 minutes until Casada fired one shot that struck Harrison in the abdomen. The incident was recorded by a dashboard-mounted camera in Kay's police cruiser.
The Kentucky State Police investigated the incident and presented its findings to the Warren County Commonwealth's Attorney's office, which declined to prosecute after reviewing the findings.

According to court filings, Harrison complied with commands to stop during the incident but did not comply with commands to show his hands, keeping his left hand concealed from the officers' sight. He was also warned by the officers that they would shoot him if he did not show his hands.
McKinley based his determination that Harrison posed no imminent threat in part on the evidence that he did not physically resist or attack the officers or others and did not make any threats during his interactions with police.