Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

Umm Actually constitutionally he does have a right to pull on a cop who he perceives as a threat. UNTIL he is convicted and stripped of that right he is presumed innocent If you want to adhere to the word of the second amendment.

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Granite

The vid is quite damning, we needed some ground audio to match the fbi vid and lo and behold it shows what many of us expected it too.....

I am surprised the FBI didn't view videos before they return her cell phones...slackers!

Most things these days go automatically into the cloud for storage, and data retention. This is most likely what happened.

a reply to: charolais

Example?

Last I checked the prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing law enforcement is extended in court, and it depends on the line of questioning, is being considered an expert witness.

a reply to: yuppa

Uhm no he doesn't.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You guys can't make it up as you go.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Discotech

Maybe take the time to read the response I gave the first time you asked the question.

Response here


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

As I have stated numerous times now you have totality of circumstances, which takes into account everything before the shooting as those facts factor into the shooting itself.

IF a U S soldier did this and it wa s on video he would be in levinworth. SO why a double standard? There is always room for arrest when the perp is signaling surrender. A good cop knows you dont have to shoot a person when you pull your gun every time. ALso The videos have been edited id bet even th e teenagers vid wa s messed with a bit.

a reply to: yuppa

Because the military is governed by the ucmj and are prohibited by the posse comitatus act from engaging in civilian law enforcement. State guard units who can do civilian law enforcement have the same requirements as civilian police.

There is a difference in pulling your duty weapon and discharging your duty weapon. The difference resides with the person the gun is pointed at.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

Uhm no he doesn't.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You guys can't make it up as you go.

I rebutt with...State makes it legal to shoot a cop

Alot of states are now allowing it apparently so YEs he does have a right to resist.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

Because the military is governed by the ucmj and are prohibited by the posse comitatus act from engaging in civilian law enforcement. State guard units who can do civilian law enforcement have the same requirements as civilian police.

The ACTION is what i am calling double standard. Cops are no better than military an d to let them do something th emilitary isnt allowwed to do to a surrendering combatant is a cop out.

a reply to: yuppa

and I say a state court ruling in Indiana has no force or effect in the state of Oregon. The law for Oregon, as I linked you to, says no. And no, a lot of states arent allowing this. Only Indiana has and even then its restricted to specific situations and stems from a domestic violence case.

So NO, he did not have a right to use any force to stop his own arrest.

* - Myths and Misconceptions About Indiana's New Self-Defense Law
* - SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1 (Indiana)

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) (d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) (e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a). (c).
(d) (f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) (g) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c), (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) (h) Notwithstanding subsection (d), (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues

or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and

out of room click link for last sentence.

a reply to: yuppa

They are different and the reason the military cant do something is because Congress says so via posse comitatus. State guard units, who are not subject to posse comitatus, can engage in civilian law enforcement under certain conditions and are held to the same standard that civilian law enforcement is.

Had a state guard unit been present the legal results would have been the same - justified.

Had it been active duty they would be in violation of federal law but not necessarily state law.

The military, when doing their jobs in a combat zone, are governed by the ucmj and Geneva conventions, among others. Those do NOT apply to domestic law enforcement. To be honest, after debating with you on other topics, I am shocked that you are even trying to make the military argument.

You are intelligent so stop trying to use an argument that you know is not valid in this scenario.

Yeah, putting both vids together, the shots are coming after he is reaching in his jacket while telling the cops to shoot him. if I didn't know better, I woulda said this was suicide by cop frankly.

As far as the tires and stuff..I heard pops, but could be from tire spikes at the roadblock. dont know. I do think a full neutral transparent investigation is warranted (automatic when a cop kills someone I would hope)...but just from a quick splice, it looks like a clean shot.

To the rednecks here..if this was detroit and the white people were black, you would be fully on board with it being a totally justified shot. dont push double standards here. it sucks it happened, but this was a event he could have avoided.

a reply to: entermemo

[ Getting a bag of Popcorn. ]

a reply to: SaturnFX

The Deschutes County Sheriffs office ran the investigation into the use of force and the results were submitted to the PA of a completely different / uninvolved county.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SaturnFX

The Deschutes County Sheriffs office ran the investigation into the use of force and the results were submitted to the PA of a completely different / uninvolved county.

(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;

It doesn't matter if you were stopped for a minor traffic violation. the second he pulled away from the police, it became an active crime, and the arresting process was lawful, him jumping out of the car and pulling a gun (seemingly) allowed for this to happen.
Suicide by cop is what I see.


NinjaAdd:
I am far more interested in what was going on after they took him down, if those were shots at/into the car, then there is a big issue. I know there was a couple pops that were the gas grenades, but if there were actual shootings at windows and such, then that presents some legal grievances that are legit in need of checking out.
Dont know though, but I think its worth checking out

a reply to: SaturnFX

we are in agreement.. I was talking about the investigation into the use of deadly force.

If the part you quoted is from my response with the wall of legal text that is from Indiana and does not apply. The law for Oregon is direct and simple -

A person cannot use any type of force to resist an arrest, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful.

Ninja response -
The first 3 shots were at the vehicle in an effort to disable it.
The next 2 shots were from the FBI, where 1 missed completely and the second blowing out the window,
The final 3 are the ones that stopped Finicum.
A taser was attempted prior to the final 3.

From the decision the shooting was justifiable, the investigation of the FBI is happening because they lied and covered up facts.

During the investigation, bullet holes were unable to be accounted for and it was discovered 2 shots were covered up/omitted. That is why the are in "trouble."

Regardless, as it is what it is...watching that video was hard. A human life was taken...and however misguided or right people think he was, it is tragic. I feel sorry for the girl who was obviously terrified. I can't imagine having to see somebody get killed...much less someone I knew.

The FBI lied, and no matter what, the choice to cover up shots was a decision that will forever mark this as an example of police/authority abuse. If the shots didn't matter, why lie?

a reply to: XcathdraUg. You speak like a law enforcement guy. I have a masters in polysci and studied the law for several years. Where's your humanity? This was a cold-blooded killing. There is much more to this story than just a simple police chase; they (police, FBI) wanted blood. This is an absolute horror. If the police that shot this elderly man don't go to jail we need an #allivesmatter major protest. Maybe the law enforcement does need a complete overhaul. Making a case now for every citizen to beware and whatever you do, don't stand up for yourself-even telling the police you are going to speak with the sheriff; cause they want the kill. Sickening-yes I am quite upset from this video-quite.

a reply to: Justso

Its sad whenever anyone dies, and in the situations involving law enforcement it means we failed. At the same time though we also have to look at what led up to the outcome. That review must include actions by all parties and not just law enforcement.

Law enforcement actions in this instance were a direct response to Finicums actions. Finicum had multiple opportunities to have a peaceful resolution to this and at every opportunity he chose to continue the escalation. Its one thing debating this after the fact. It is something else entirely being the officer smack dab in the middle having to make a decision based on whats occurring. I don't believe people adequately understand that concept.

Does the system need an overhaul? Depends on what overhaul means and it depends on what the changes are. While I acknowledge and understand the comment about citizens needing to be aware, it ignores the other half of the situation. Law Enforcement also has to be aware and cautious.

Pretty much all states have laws that require law enforcement to comply with certain requests by civilians we are dealing with, and we saw that occur in the video when they asked the police to identify themselves. My state requires us to have our commission card with us and producible on demand (situation specific) to verify our identity and authority (departmental policy comes into play as well).

The laws that prohibit a civilian from resisting an arrest are present for safety / legal reasons. Law enforcement is allowed to raise their level of force in order to overcome the level of resistance. Legalities should be argued in court and not roadside.

Civilians should be knowledgeable about the law and procedures to understand why law enforcement does some of the things they do.

This has to be a 2 way road and both sides must communicate with each other to get the changes needed and to reestablish trust.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Finicum had multiple opportunities to have a peaceful resolution to this and at every opportunity he chose to continue the escalation.

It was pretty much peaceful until the cops started shooting the truck while they where driving, setting up an ambush road block etc.... it really doesn't matter if LaVoy was reaching for a gun, he was already being shot at in the truck. The dude is a hero for taking gun fire away from the truck.

a reply to: imitator

3 rounds were fired at the truck by OSP in an effort to disable it.
The FBI fired 2 rounds at the roadblock Finicum tried to drive around, almost hitting/killing an officer.
OSP attempted to use a taser.
OSP fired 3 rounds into Finicum when he continued to ignore commands and reached, again, into his coat pocket.

Had Finicum complied when he was first stopped he would be alive. Instead he chose to flee, engage in a pursuit, avoided spike strips and tried to bypass a road block.

Finicum held the cards. Finicums actions led to his death.

He was no hero, in any sense of the word.