Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

a reply to: Boadicea

First stop. NOT the last stop.

The first stop is where Finicum fled the scene.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

More obfuscation still? STILL??

More emotional nonsense?...still? STILL?

Try to negotiate the evidence without the freak out please.

The shots came as he was exiting the vehicle with his hands up as far as he could have them. Are you seriously still sticking to your narrative??? The shot that was lied about was probably the shot that started it all and got the local PD all spooked to start firing. The synced audio clearly shows shots were being fire WELL BEFORE he did any kind of reaching.

Yes...they fired two shots right when he jumped out...Neither hit him. Man almost slams into roadblock and leaps out of car...a sniper shot twice and missed...then no more shots until he goes down..
and they fired shots as the car was speeding toward the roadblock.

I don't see how you can say they all started firing? You have the audio and two synched videos? You can see and hear each shot? No barrage of bullets.

Why did LaVoy leap out and once out not stop where he was? And continue to reach for his gun? Or are you contending that did not happen despite the video?
www.oregonlive.com...

Your intent is clear and it's dishonest and sickening.

I already have reminded people of your past post and attempt to twist the narrative here:

a reply to: raymundoko

I was hoping you would realize how mistaken you were, but now you will just double down it seems. Almost your entire post was wrong in that other thread, repeatedly.

You intent to go personal is over the top..

originally posted by: Boadicea
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!

I've included below a direct link to where, in another thread, I posted links to parts 1 - 8 plus Interlude. There's more updates further in that thread.

His posts about the FBI video are not in order at his website. I slacked off and haven't updated the other thread but I can see he has a new post up because he viewed Shawna's video yesterday. It's important to view the whole series so far, preferably in order, since its inception so one has a thorough understanding of what he has committed to doing.

Here

Also here...

Autopsy shows no wound to LaVoys lower left Torso where he was reaching...repeatedly?

www.oregonlive.com...

So the mass of theory that he was clutching a wound was wrong?

Anyone looking to discuss evidence here?

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's been fascinating watching you argue how the law works with people who are arguing how they think it should work.

I agree he shouldn't have been shot, but I also agree that I don't see much in these videos that show it was an unlawful shooting by the police/FBI.

originally posted by: Balans
It's MO in the military, why on earth would it not be for police officers ?

Because police are not the military....

but the mistakes on the government's side are the ones that led to Finicum's death.

No, that was all due to Finicum.

Starting with the wrongfull re-incarceration of the Hammonds.

There was nothing wrong with that.

All of this could have been handled way more peacefully,

Yes, the religous/gun nutters did not have to occupy the refuge!

Comply and obey.

a reply to: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

First stop. NOT the last stop.

The first stop is where Finicum fled the scene.

My mistake -- and my apologies. From the same link, at the first stop:

Payne, the tactical leader of the occupation, surrendered after a state trooper fired a plastic tipped 40mm pepper spray round that struck the truck's canopy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No problem, I can see why you could misinterpret the intent of my post.

I commend you for being "the bad guy" here and answering from within your knowledge of the law, although I do secretly hope you do not necessarily agree with all of it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

where does it say you can't defend yourself when shot at for no reason just because they are police, fbi or whatever?

the way i see it, if you use a gun without any provocation on someone prepare to get shot back no matter who you are. that's what happens with aggression and escalation. if you don't want a violent reaction then don't threaten or shoot people, conduct your actions with composure, compromise and thoughtfulness not fear, paranoia, hostility and lack of compromise.
and who cares what laws say, they should act with restraint and reason like a human being not an animal driven by instinct regardless of what they do or who they are, no exception.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Balans
It's MO in the military, why on earth would it not be for police officers ?

Because police are not the military....

but the mistakes on the government's side are the ones that led to Finicum's death.

No, that was all due to Finicum.

Starting with the wrongfull re-incarceration of the Hammonds.

There was nothing wrong with that.

All of this could have been handled way more peacefully,

Yes, the religous/gun nutters did not have to occupy the refuge!

Comply and obey.

Weird post but allright:

- So you're saying police should indeed fire their weapons sooner with deadly intent without physical warning than military personnel does.

- In the grander scheme of things the protest itself should not have to have happened so no, that was on the government.

- Many things are wrong with that.

- The name-calling there actually says a lot. I'll leave it at that.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Also here...

Autopsy shows no wound to LaVoys lower left Torso where he was reaching...repeatedly?

www.oregonlive.com...

So the mass of theory that he was clutching a wound was wrong?

Anyone looking to discuss evidence here?

Internal damage from gunshot wounds can give pain in other places.

Exit wounds also.

Autopsy report Page 2, III, C. says left side exit wound.

a reply to: Indigo5

Let's focus on one thing:

Yes...they fired two shots right when he jumped out...Neither hit him

What are you missing? They tried to shoot him while his hands were in the air. Trying to justify the attempted shooting of a man in an obvious surrender pose with a "but he missed" is idiotic. There is no other word for it. It's idiotic. Anything Finicum did after that was directly caused by the situation of the FBI agent opening fire on a man who had his hands in the air. Granted, the very situation itself, as I have stated several times, was ultimately caused by failure to comply at the first stop. Had he complied this would have ended differently.

Now on to this:

a reply to: Indigo5

Again you drive a false narrative.

Direct link PDF to Autopsy Report

He had TWO exit wounds on his left side. One from his 4th rib and one under his left pectoral. Did you even read the autopsy report you are claiming to have knowledge of?

Also, they claimed Finnicum had the weapon in a coat pocket, yet finnicum clearly owns a shoulder and hip holster. Why would he suddenly decide to carry a gun he doesn't own in a jacket pocket? Again, in the video someone asks where the guns are and Finnicum makes it clear they don't have access to any.

a reply to: namehere

So we are clear, he was shot at with reason. The problem I have is that the reason was created by the way this was handled. The FBI holds much of the fault. The shooting was indeed legally justified, but morally wrong. Ruby Ridge anyone?

a reply to: raymundoko

the only reason i saw was irrational fear and paranoia and even if he refused to stop how does that excuse or justify murder, does law enforcement think themselves above everyone else?

a reply to: Xcathdra
Lol u hide behind the law , refer to law a lot . Would be worth it if you recognised all laws , internal , national and international and soverign laws . But you just seem to like it when its convinenet . You parrot the official books always. Are u sure u are a human or are u again one of those robots ? No doesnt matter that someone just died , lot of other innocents could have , oh no someone broke the law,shoot em dead.

a reply to: namehere

He almost hit an agent/officer with his vehicle...That's the law, sorry. I feel the roadblock was setup where it was with an ambush in mind. Google map the area, there were several straightaways they could have used to setup a roadblock. They intentionally used a blind turn.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The verdict who was the guilty party is decided by the courts n not by some random parrot sitting behind a keyboard . Why are you duscussing this again ?

a reply to: xuenchen

What biology class did you have?? Pain receptors called Nociceptor send messages when cells near them are damaged. So you feel a gun shot by the receptors sending messages through the spine to the brain. Its not a random thing exception to that is spinal cord injury where nerve damage is done. In that case the connection is broken and the nerves go haywire causing pain. But a shot through the spinal cord would cause pain in neck shoulders and jaw similar to heart attack.

So no humans were designed to have pain at the site of an injury otherwise it defeats the purpose. A shot in the shoulder you aren't going to feel it in your leg. Having been shot trust me when I say you know exactly where the bullet went thru you.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.""

Right...But that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU CLAIMED...

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

YOU SAID: That Authorities confirmed LaVoy and/or his vehicle was fired upon at the first stop ..

What you provided and what I have read and watched does not support that..

Either you were incorrect...or I missed it...If I missed it, please show me..

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.""

Right...But that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU CLAIMED...

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

YOU SAID: That Authorities confirmed LaVoy and/or his vehicle was fired upon at the first stop ..

What you provided and what I have read and watched does not support that..

Either you were incorrect...or I missed it...If I missed it, please show me..

Actually they were trying to talk him into getting out the truck. They showed a lot of restraint at the first stop. So much so that they thought it would be OK to continue. They didn't think the police offered a big enough threat to get out the vehicle. This tells me they should have used more people on the first stop to make them think twice at fleeing the scene. This k tactically it was a bad decision. I guess they assumed they would just surrender I don't know.