Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

a reply to: Indigo5

And you are ignoring the context that we were discussing how to enact someone grabbing at a wound there. So comprehension also appears to be your problem. The nipple is roughly 1" wide on a male if that. Why get into specifics when trying to tell someone how to enact grabbing at a wound by saying "hey, left side of the nipple". Just look at your nipple and go straight down from the center of it to just under the pectoral. That's where the bullet exited. It did NOT exit between the nipple and sternum as you are suggesting and you know full well you were stretching on that one.

You are mad at me because I obliterated you in another thread and it turned out I was right and you were wrong. I forgive you.

3 shots fired, pop pop pop, no prior shots

Emotion is hell of a drug people, stay away from that stuff it will always cloud your thinking and judgement.

X is right on this. The outcome was so avoidable it's not even funny. Death sucks I get it, but to blatantly put yourself in a situation of death is just stupid.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Still wondering why they where shooting at the vehicle multiple times with people inside?
They where no threat and they did not fire on the officers.
Isn't that attempted murder?

We need to analyze the audio with ballistics to show the direction and timing of the shots.

a reply to: TechniXcality
Oh my, I agree this video is heartbreaking. How could another human do this to his fellow human. These people are animals. SAD!😂

a reply to: raymundoko

Can't help you there...Between the fourth and fifth rib? Not below the pectoral...and the ME went over exactly where the bullet exited, down to the inch..and no you apparently still don't understand what "medial to" means ..


But honestly, right about here stopped caring altogether whether you ever figure it out...good luck to you..

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I do understand that this thread is about the shooting portion of the event, but FACT is it was completely avoidable!

*To all the folks screaming "ambush" ... If it was an ambush ALL of the officers, agents and vehicles would have been hidden, and if they were all hidden there would have been NO road block. The complete road block was in plain sight (not an ambush).

a reply to: Granite

Those of you who doesn't think this was murder, should have their morals and head examined. HE WAS GOING TO THE FREAKING SHERIFFS OFFICE! He even asked for escort!

MURDER MURDER MURDER. And yes I am pissed! and disgusted at the government at the same time!
Welcome to the New World Order!

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You should learn what an Ambush is:

a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.

The road block was on a blind turn even though they had several straightaways they could have used. All the officers were in a concealed potion on the sides of the road. By definition it was an ambush.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

He asked for an escort at a stop that was intended to be an arrest for him...that's not how that works. He should have complied at the first stop.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

The complete road block was in plain sight...

...around a blind curve.

am·bush ˈambo͝oSH/
noun: ambush; plural noun: ambushes
1. a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.
synonyms: surprise attack, trap;

verb: ambush; 3rd person present: ambushes; past tense: ambushed; past participle: ambushed; gerund or present participle: ambushing
1. make a surprise attack on (someone) from a concealed position.
synonyms: attack by surprise, surprise, pounce on, fall upon, lay a trap for, set an ambush for, lie in wait for, waylay

Source

That was an ambush by definition.

ETA: Sorry. Just saw raymundoko's response above mine. Didn't mean to be redundant.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

No its not. It's government 101.

Indiana's court system applies ONLY to Indiana and does not / cannot be applied to Oregon. The only way a court ruling in one state can be applied to others is at the FEDERAL level, which this case was not. If the federal appeals circuit gets the case on some type of appeal once state courts are done, and makes a ruling, that appeals ruling, in general, will apply to all states WITHIN that federal appeals circuit ONLY. If it makes it to SCOTUS there ruling, in general, would apply to ALL states.

This was a ruling (and now a law) in the state of Indiana and the Indiana court system. It does NOT apply to any other states - period.

My position has nothing to do with my chosen profession and the fact you are trying for the personal attack to shift focus away from the fact you are wrong is telling.

As for the Finicum comments I already stated im done with the debate. You guys believe what you want (and given the fact you are still wrongly arguing about the Indiana court ruling just reinforces that).

States are separate sovereigns, both, from each and every other state and with the federal government. How do we know a court ruling in one state does not apply to another? The full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution - Article IV Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[5]

Using your incorrect logic if a state court ruling could be applied to other states then there would be no reason for full faith and credit. Since the rulings arent applicable from one state to other states we need full faith and credit. Without full faith and credit states could refuse to recognize anything coming from another state -
* Drivers license
* Marriage certificates
* Birth certificates
* criminal convictions
* school / high school / college diplomas / degrees
* professional licensing
* etc etc etc

Tell you what -
Produce evidence that supports your "claim" that says the Indiana court ruling applies to other states. While you do that I will be continuing on considering you will never find the info because it doesn't exist. It applies ONLY to Indiana.

You need to stop making false / obscure claims. It does nothing but undermines your credibility.

You need to go back to your grade school / high school/ college and demand a refund.

Actually i was referring to you as a VICTIM of Indoctrination actually. it wasnt a insult. And credibility? really? you arent a member of that law enforcement agency. As to my claim IT WAS IN THAT OTHER LINK I POSTED in one of the paragraphs. it says Quite a few states allow th e shootin g of police if justified Or you feel like your life is in danger. a Cop is not above the law. That includes stand your ground or the castle doctrine. A car can be argued to be a castle an da place to feel safe at as well.

And No i won t be going back to school. Way to misunderstand and take something as a insult though earlier. congrats.

a reply to: xuenchen

"Go ahead and shot me."

Careful what you ask for.

originally posted by: raymundoko
It's being said that the FBI agent didn't just omit that he fired his weapon, he actually LIED and said he did NOT fire his weapon and that is why an investigation has been launched. Other OSP officers however marked him as the person who fired the shots as Finnicum was exiting the vehicle.

I now believe the FBI agent intended to cause a shootout, but it seems the OSP officers were very well trained and did not just start firing away when the FBI SNIPER missed twice. If anything the OSP officers seem to have handled this case very well, and most likely took all direction on how to perform the stop and where to place the road block from the FBI agents.

The fact that the FBI outright LIED is nothing short of corruption. They have lost all credibility & anything they say now, can't be trusted. All agents involved should be struck off as they have proven they have no integrity & they themselves can't be trusted.

The questions have to be asked:
A) If the shooting was justified WHY did the FBI outright LIE?
B) why was he fired upon when leaving the truck with his hands up (unarmed), is this not surrendering?
C) why would joe public trust the system enough to have his day in court, if the very agents of that said system outright LIE.


I my friend am in total agreement with you & do believe the FBI intended to cause a shootout. There was only one way this was going to end.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I do understand that this thread is about the shooting portion of the event, but FACT is it was completely avoidable!

*To all the folks screaming "ambush" ... If it was an ambush ALL of the officers, agents and vehicles would have been hidden, and if they were all hidden there would have been NO road block. The complete road block was in plain sight (not an ambush).

When do police open fire on a vehicle with people inside that have not fired upon them?

That alone is attempted murder.

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: Granite

Those of you who doesn't think this was murder, should have their morals and head examined. HE WAS GOING TO THE FREAKING SHERIFFS OFFICE! He even asked for escort!

MURDER MURDER MURDER. And yes I am pissed! and disgusted at the government at the same time!
Welcome to the New World Order!

They were not going to the sheriffs office they were going to attend a town meeting. That changed when they ran into the police. Then suddenly they decide they want to speak with the sheriff. The sheriff had previously told them if they wanted to leave he would guarantee safe passage they declined his offer. It appears when things got rough they changed their minds about his offer but even as he advised it was to late.

a reply to: yuppa

No other state allows the shooting of police officers and even Indiana, which you are intentionally distorting, establishes the very limited / restrictive manner in which it could occur. I linked you to the actual law and you apparently refused to read it. You also ignored the Oregon law that prohibits people from using force of any kind against police officers making an arrest, whether lawful or not.

No other states allow it.
Its heavily restrictive in Indiana.
Indiana court rulings don't apply to Oregon.
Indiana laws don't apply to Oregon.

You are an intelligent person so please stop going down this dead end road you are on.

a reply to: potmuncheR

How do you explain Bundy in the other vehicle being arrested then?? Shouldn't they have killed him to since he's the one that started the whole thing?? Doesn't make sense and smacks of paranoia.

Like I was saying -

* - Bundy refuses in court to recognize US authority in Nevada

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Jailed Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused Thursday to acknowledge federal authority and declined to enter a plea to federal charges that he led an armed standoff against a round-up of cattle two years ago.

After several minutes of confusion about whether Bundy had a lawyer, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carl Hoffman entered a not guilty plea on Bundy's behalf and scheduled a detention hearing March 17.

Arguments then will focus on whether the 69-year-old Bundy should remain in custody pending trial on 16 charges, including conspiracy, assault and threatening a federal officer, obstruction and firearms offenses.

It could be many months before trial. Federal prosecutor Steven Myhre told the judge the case involving 19 defendants would be slow-tracked as "complex."

"I make no plea before this court," Bundy said, standing in a courtroom full of family members, friends, media, court officials and U.S. marshals.

Bundy wore a maroon-colored Henderson city jail uniform, with his ankles shackled and his hands free during the 15-minute hearing. He waved before the hearing to his wife, Carol Bundy, and several adult children and supporters among about 40 people in the courtroom audience.

Joel Hansen, a Nevada attorney who has represented property rights advocates in a number of cases in the state, served as Bundy's attorney. But Hansen told the judge that Bundy plans to get another lawyer for trial.

Hansen said Bundy's refusal to enter a plea was a statement that he couldn't have done anything wrong because federal law doesn't apply.

Bundy has consistently denied U.S. government authority over rangeland around his 160-acre cattle ranch and melon farm in Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Click link for remainder of article...


For those unfamiliar with the law whenever someone has been read their Miranda warning and they refuse to speak we are required to take that silence as them invoking their right to remain silent. In court settings when a defendant is asked to enter a plea and refuses to do so its an automatic assumption the person is entering a plea of not guilty. I add this info since some people who are unfamiliar with the law and refuse to learn it to preempt the failed argument that the judge had no right to enter a not guilty plea on Bundy's behalf.

Could it be any more clear that these people were not going to cooperate with the government for a peaceful resolution to this?

a reply to: Xcathdra

What they are doing is honorable in a way. They are actively resisting government without harming innocent people,destroying property,terrorism(use of fear as a means of political coercion) and harming anyone.
By resisting without violence they invalidate the "violent domestic terrorist" narrative they are propagandizing to the media.

The government failed on their message(don't challenge authority or else).
The constitutionalists and libertarians succeeded in their message.(uncontrolled authoritarian government that does not respect the individual or restraints like the constitution is extremely dangerous.)

People on the left(Ferguson and other murders of unarmed minorities by bad police)
People on the right(murder of Lavoy and imprisonment of Bundy)
People on the correct side(libertarians already know government is violent,warmongering,financially parasitic and oppressive and know that it must be restrained...with a constitution and bill of rights)

All they are doing is turning the general population against them and towards libertarianism.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Considering they spout off about the Constitution while ignoring the parts they dont like while saying they dont recognize the authority of the federal government all the while refusing to use the courts to push for a resolution - they are not honorable in any sense of the word.

They are arrogant self serving leaches wanting something for nothing while placing people in danger while they throw a hissy fit to get what they want.

They belong in jail for their crimes.. If being a no talent ass clown were against the law they should get time for that also.


No matter how many people wish it so, Finicum was not murdered and anyone with the ability to objectively look at the facts knows it.

I would agree with suicide by cop given his actions leading up to him being shot.