Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa
I dont think they were shot at while driving and the shots at the vehicle at the end I think were less lethal to break the glass.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Boadicea
I hate saying watch infowars, but watch that video.
There is literally no other conclusion after watching it.
They match the audio with the video. He reached for his gun, THEN was shot, NOT before.

The authorities say otherwise.

FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting

You are confusing two things.

The officers are under investigation because they did not report firing two shots...two shots from a distant position, likely woods on the opposite side of the road and a sniper reacting to Lavoy leaping from the vehicle.

One: Pierces the passenger side roof and shatter the passenger side window (seen in camera video)
the other: Missed the vehicle and Lavoy (as confirmed by video, audio autopsy and accounting for the rounds)

The officer who fired those two rapid shots did not report them...and they weren't reported by other officers in the reporting.

But neither hit Lavoy..

All of that is separate from the fact that the cam video synchronized to aerial footage very clearly shows him reach inside his coat when he is shot.

a reply to: raymundoko

Shawna cox video doesnt seem to support what you are saying.

The agent who fired would have had justification so there should have been no reason not to report it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Excuse me? See when he gets out of the car and his hands are up? Hear the gun shot? See the window shatter? That is the FBI agents shot that did that.

a reply to: Indigo5

You are confusing two things.

No, I am confusing nothing. Perhaps I am simply not making the same distinctions that you are, or not applying the same significance as you.

The officers are under investigation because they did not report firing two shots...two shots from a distant position, likely woods on the opposite side of the road and a sniper reacting to Lavoy leaping from the vehicle.

One: Pierces the passenger side roof and shatter the passenger side window (seen in camera video)
the other: Missed the vehicle and Lavoy (as confirmed by video, audio autopsy and accounting for the rounds)

The officer who fired those two rapid shots did not report them...and they weren't reported by other officers in the reporting.

But neither hit Lavoy..

All of that is separate from the fact that the cam video synchronized to aerial footage very clearly shows him reach inside his coat when he is shot.

All of which omits my point, provided by statements of the authorities, which is that LaVoy and/or his vehicle was fired upon at the first stop and as he approached the roadblock -- before he exited the vehicle.

Yes, it is those shots by the FBI agents about which they lied to investigators which are under further investigation, and to what extent we do not know because they chose not to tell us pending further investigation; but that was not the point I was making.

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: theantediluvian

Am i crazy or did it seem like the shooting started quicker on the girls cell phone video..in the drone video his hands were up then went down and it appeared to be much further away from the car than one may have thought if you just look at the cell phone video..

Peter Offermann has been involved in an ongoing, deep analysis of the FBI video at his website. He shows on the FBI video where the moment LaVoy exits the truck is blurred out; in other words, edited.

Part 2

Peter has posted nine parts, an interlude, a notice and he's been answering requests from readers which total at least five so far.

Here is the details of what occurred.

The first 3 shots occurred before Finicum reached the final roadblock in an effort to disable the vehicle.
2 from the FBI agent.
3 from OSP into Finicum.
OSP did attempt to use a taser.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Police do not shoot to incapacitate we shoot to stop the threat and the number of rounds is dependent on when the threat stops being one.


All Finicum had to do was comply.


Police are not allowed to give warning shots. Discharging a firearm is in response to a deadly force situation.

What is wrong with this picture? ...


Furthermore, since when are police officers not allowed to give warning shots ? It's MO in the military, why on earth would it not be for police officers ? If that is in fact the MO for American LEO's then that alone would be grounds enough for major protests...


I'm of the opinion, after all I've reviewed, that indeed both sides made mistakes, but the mistakes on the government's side are the ones that led to Finicum's death. Starting with the wrongfull re-incarceration of the Hammonds. Not to mention the atrocities comitted by the BLM over the years.

All of this could have been handled way more peacefully, but the preferred option was an ignorant ambush.

Comply and obey.

a reply to: Balans

As I explained use of a firearm is considered deadly force. Dont get pissy with me since the Supreme Court established the guidelines coupled with state law.

This is exactly what im talking about when people dont bother to educate themselves and run off at the mouth. Opinion cannot be substituted for law.


If you are using a deadly force item in an effort to "warn" then its not a deadly force encounter and does not justify the use of a deadly force item.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I only asked you what was wrong with that picture, no need to go running off at the mouth as I haven't at you I believe.

So if I understand that correctly, basically what your Supreme Court established is telling LEO's never to fire warning shots or they will get sued if after that they fire their weapon with deadly intent?

As I said, comply and obey.

a reply to: tweetie

Thanks for the link, Tweetie. This is another good link to add to the links I've been compiling, along with the other links you provided me yesterday -- thanks!

a reply to: Balans


Yes the Supreme Court as well as state and Federal law severely restrict the situations in which an officer can use deadly force.

As in any situation things often dont go as planned. So if you are attempting a warning shot and end up killing someone.... you get the idea.

Hence the reason we cant give warning shots. The standards applied to law enforcement are more strict than those applied to civilians. Because police act under color of law and because we have a chain of command we are subject to 3 investigations where a civilian is faced with just one.

Civilian -
* - Criminal investigation - Miranda applies.

Law Enforcement -
* - Internal Affairs investigation - Garrity applies
* - Criminal investigation - Miranda applies.
* - Civil Rights investigation.

The restrictions and higher standards that are placed on police are done so for perfectly valid reasons.

you say his death is justified because he pulled a gun? then i say to you that him pulling a gun was justified by their uncompromising aggression and their endangering of his family. who gave the law the right to treat people like killers for defying their authority even a little and murdering them? i mean seriously this guy died over some land? the law created this whole situation because their lack of compromise and hostility, not once have they tried to settle this or many other cases peacefully, it's always do as we say or else, as if it's the mafia is running the law.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5

You are confusing two things.

No, I am confusing nothing. Perhaps I am simply not making the same distinctions that you are, or not applying the same significance as you.

The officers are under investigation because they did not report firing two shots...two shots from a distant position, likely woods on the opposite side of the road and a sniper reacting to Lavoy leaping from the vehicle.

One: Pierces the passenger side roof and shatter the passenger side window (seen in camera video)
the other: Missed the vehicle and Lavoy (as confirmed by video, audio autopsy and accounting for the rounds)

The officer who fired those two rapid shots did not report them...and they weren't reported by other officers in the reporting.

But neither hit Lavoy..

All of that is separate from the fact that the cam video synchronized to aerial footage very clearly shows him reach inside his coat when he is shot.

All of which omits my point, provided by statements of the authorities, which is that LaVoy and/or his vehicle was fired upon at the first stop and as he approached the roadblock -- before he exited the vehicle.

Here is the phone video synched with the aerial video...As well as some statements by authorities..
www.oregonlive.com...

* Where does the video or statements show that they were fired upon at the first stop?

I could be missing it?

a reply to: namehere

Except no, he has no right to pull a gun on law enforcement who are making an arrest. A person does not have to have a gun in their hand to be a threat nor do they have to fire first. The OSP fired as a last resort when he reached in his coat where his gun was.

Finicum caused his own death.

I knew absolutely nothing about this case/subject, before scanning over this thread. What I see in the drone vid is a guy reach across his chest when he's being told to keep his hands extended. He then gets shot by the officer. Happens every day in this country when the suspect makes a threatening move. Nothing unusual here, IMO.

Now, when police allegedly brutalize unarmed adults and children, that's worthy of investigation.

a reply to: Balans

My apologies. I took your post the wrong way.

Sorry.

Here's the autopsy report....

Finicum Autopsy

a reply to: Indigo5

* Where does the video or statements show that they were fired upon at the first stop?

Here:

FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting

Cox's video showed that one shot hit the truck's left rear passenger window as Finicum stepped out. At the time, Finicum appeared to have his hands at least at shoulder height. Investigators later established that the bullet entered the truck through the roof before shattering the window and concluded it was fired by an FBI agent. Another bullet from the same FBI agent apparently went wild and missed the truck altogether, the investigation showed.

And an ATS thread/discussion here:

ATS Thread: FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting