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

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I was listening to the live feed the night before they left saying the FBI surrounded them. the guy they were talking to asked them to turn on the camera and get footage. The lady said they can't, she said they disabled them. Can they do this?

First off, I'm not a cop, or in any way affiliated with law enforcement. As far as I know, there are all sorts of Orwellian things that can be done to smartphones, through the software. It's basically a small computer, so almost anything you could do to a computer could be done to a smartphone through the software. Dumb phones are probably susceptible to many of these hacks as well.

As far as affecting the electrical equipment itself, I'm sure there are a number of tactics that the FBI could have brought to bear against the final four had they chosen to. I must admit that my knowledge of electrical warfare is somewhat limited. I'm sure there are other members here who could provide more knowledgable answers.

Could they? Yeah, probably. Did they, though? I dunno. Maybe. Hacking tactics, maybe. Other EW, doubtful I'd guess. From what I heard, the four were lamenting the fact that their cameras were useless at night, as they had no light to work with.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

That article refers to Sheriff Palmer. He is the sheriff of Grant county. Sheriff Ward is the presiding sheriff in Harney county, where the standoff and the 'enforcement action' took place. Had the occupiers bugged out to Grant county, they might still be partying on with their activism. It appears that they may have been planning to do so, as far as I can tell. They had been advised to do so by Rhodes, and were well aware of the federal ramping up of activity. This may be why authorities decided to move when they did.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

They have to fire a warning shot and most kill shots are cleared through the chain of command.

And of course there are always exceptions.

I am glad John Moore made a public stand. Now, I will patiently await one of the many officers involved with Finicum's murder to come forward. I would like to see this matter get settled.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

There was an article on OregonLive yesterday saying the a legislator from Aloha, Oregon was trying to pass a bill in the state senate that would keep the name(s) of the officer(s) who shot LaVoy sealed from the public. When I went back to the link, it is now scrubbed:

www.oregonlive.com...-story-1

a reply to: Xcathdra

Natural inalienable rights are trumped by the law.

Nope. By definition, natural INALIENABLE rights CANNOT be trumped by man's law.... only color of law. Period. Full stop.

But please keep defending this and other unjust law enforcement killings. Let people see just how little regard or respect some people have for life. It's another way people will understand that they could very well be next, regardless of what they do or don't do, because officers believe they can put anyone and everyone in a no-win situation, in which they "feel" so "afraid" for their own lives that they can shoot you down like a rabid dog in the street.

It may be the best way for BLM to finally evolve into ALM.

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

We've seen over and over in this country where military war tactics are being used in non-war scenarios inside the U.S. I can remember reading about many veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars returning to the U.S. and joining police forces across the country. Their deeply-embedded training is geared for war. Every domestic situation becomes a war scenario.

Provide me a few examples of police officers who are former marines shooting people for fun.

I don't think you'll find many.

I cannot fathom how you got this out of what I wrote. Take care.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

However one wants to paint the picture of Mr Finicums death,imo, there are a few things that are undeniable in regards to the limited evidence that law enforcement prematurely released for public consumption (before the investigation could be completed).

1. He was ambushed via a roadblock on a blind corner.

"Ambushed via a roadblock on a blind corner"??? Doesn't an ambush involve the element of surprise? You do realize he had just fled several federal agents and a swat team after being pulled over? I think that kind of eliminates the surprise factor?

Secondly...what relevance is the "Blind Corner" bit?...I mean apart from pure BS utility...Cuz everyone in the car agrees his intent was to run around the road-block? And hell..even at the speed he was going he had time to slow down (unless he was texting while driving?)...he did not even attempt to slow down, he attempted to run around the road-block.

Honestly...the pretzels folks twist their common sense into all to fit a theme they really, really want to believe.

a reply to: Boadicea

Right meanwhile in the real world its trumped by actual law. Trying to use inalienable rights as an excuse to justify breaking the law doesn't fly.

a reply to: Xcathdra

1. Dismiss 2. Distort
3. Distract 4. Dismay

a reply to: Boadicea

I happened upon this:

Link

The one you saw must have been moved.

P.S. Personally, I don't want to know who fired the fatal shot or shots. Going after the person or persons does not do anything for me because I'm not into the tit for tat mentality. Just my two cents.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Xcathdra

1. Dismiss 2. Distort
3. Distract 4. Dismay

Yup it applies to Russian propaganda. You apparently left that part out...

Here -

Evolution of Russian propaganda - www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is the part you intentionally left out.

Second question - what does it have to do with this thread? My argument on the inalienable rights excuse put forward by others is in fact correct. When you remove laws and allow an individual to make their own interpretation you open up Pandora's box and the founding fathers never had that in mind. They put together a document that restricts the government while spelling out the things they cannot take away from the people.

They also included the ability to make laws, sign them into law and have a judicial system hear arguments when its in dispute. Since some are so fond of invoking the federalist papers, had they actually read them all instead of ignoring the parts they dont like, they would have noticed the intent for the supreme court to interpret issues of constitutionality and how it applies.

Inalienable rights dont trump the law. What part confuses you? Maybe make a valid argument instead of resorting to quoting stuff in my signature line that applies to Russia. You are capable pf making a valid argument right? Supporting your argument with facts and what not.

Go ahead.. give it a shot.

It's murder when it is an armed white man but if your an unarmed black man, it was justice.

Hypocritical as usual.

a reply to: tweetie

P.S. Personally, I don't want to know who fired the fatal shot or shots. Going after the person or persons does not do anything for me because I'm not into the tit for tat mentality. Just my two cents.

I really don't want to know either. I do want to know whose plan it was to set it up that way. That is who I blame. They took a big chance that Finicum wouldn't lose control and kill one or more officers on scene. In some ways, I feel the state police were also wronged by the whole situation, and that the feds put the rank and file among them in a horrible horrible position. And I'm sure there was plenty of fearmongering before the operation to make sure they knew what a big bad boogeyman Finicum was.

I don't think we're doing law enforcement officers any favors by putting them in these kill-or-be-killed positions. Killing a person isn't the cake walk so many people think it is. Taking a life has very serious repercussions for one's mental, emotional and spiritual health and well-being. It destroys marriages, families, and lives. Our LEOs also deserve better defensive options -- training, tactics, and equipment.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Right meanwhile in the real world its trumped by actual law. Trying to use inalienable rights as an excuse to justify breaking the law doesn't fly.

Only in "your" world. Trying to use man's law as an excuse to justify breaking natural law doesn't "fly" in the end... What goes around always comes around again. It's natural law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

anyproof he had a weapon on him? as in not put on his person later that is.

a reply to: yuppa

Any reason for the law to think he wasn't armed? He and the rest sort of made it a point to make sure everyone knew they were.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa

Any reason for the law to think he wasn't armed? He and the rest sort of made it a point to make sure everyone knew they were.

Looking at that video it didnt look like he was reaching for a weapon. Only a moron stands still while pulling a gun when someone is drawn on you. no weapon was visible and as such assuming they have one is dangerous to do. The man was caught. most likely the cop/killer asked him to turn out his pockets and then claims he was going fo ra gun. blam cover story.

Can you say 100 percent this wasnt a set up?

a reply to: yuppa

Only a moron stands still while pulling a gun when someone is drawn on you.

Or one who would rather be dead than imprisoned.

Can you say 100 percent this wasnt a set up?

No. But from what I've seen and heard, it was a planned apprehension of a group of people who were known to go armed.

a reply to: Boadicea

Actually it does...

Those in denial just don't see it and if they do they intentionally ignore it.

Just like Finicum ignored verbal commands.