Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

Given the totality of circumstances nope. He would be alive had he not fled.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Mate, regardless of what this man had done prior, At the point he got out of the truck with his HANDS UP he is surrendering, he becomes a non-combatant.

Fact:
A) He was shot at while getting out of the truck with his HANDS UP.
B) he was shot in the BACK 3 times.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Reply to KYLEPLATINUM

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

That alone is attempted murder.


Again, could have been completely avoidable. Yes, about those people in the truck, who all had an option to get out but decided to stay in the truck.... It's all about your actions folks and they all chose theirs.


Absolutely correct, it was completely avoidable. All the officers had to do was NOT shoot at him when getting out of the truck with his HANDS UP. At that point he was surrendering.

As for those people deciding to stay in the truck, why wouldn't they. They just witnessed Finnicum being shot at with his HANDS UP as he exited the vehicle, then being shot dead.

And again I would have to agree with you, it is all about your actions & the did chose theirs, as did the police, THEY CHOSE TO OPEN FIRE.

a reply to: potmuncheR

All Finicum had to do was not travel to Oregon to interject himself into a situation the Hammonds never wanted them involved in.

All Finicum had to do was comply at the traffic stop instead of ignoring the police, ignoring verbal commands, fleeing the stop, engaging in a pursuit, avoiding spike strips, tried to go around a roadblock while almost killing an officer.

Was this avoidable? Absolutely.

Finicum had many opportunities to end this peacefully. In the end he kept to his word that he won't be going to jail and his actions guaranteed that outcome.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Reality is, they all were asked if they wanted out of the truck before he started to flee, evade, run away, begin a chase, while he was screaming shoot me in the head. It doesn't matter what they thought was going to happen or not going to happen. Face it people, an unfortunate event went down and death sucks, but to fuel the fire all the way to the end is a choice he made. No Murder. Justified



Reality is, to run away, begin a chase, while he was screaming shoot me in the head DOES NOT justify police to open fire.
And as for fuelling the fire all the way to the end, correct me if I'm wrong, he got out of the truck with his HANDS UP, at that point he is surrendering.

Reality is, he was shot at while surrendering (hands up), then shot in the BACK 3 times because of an alleged gun that nobody saw.

Yes murder, not justified.

a reply to: potmuncheR

Again since people are not understanding the term totality of circumstances. You must look at everything leading up to the shooting and not just the shooting itself. When he almost hit the officer he met the legal criteria for a use of deadly force. When you add in everything else the legalities become that much more strong.

Remember we get to see the situation in hindsight and from both sides. The officer's and Finicum don't because it unfolded in realtime right in front of their faces. Finicum held the keys to the outcome.

What did the officers perceive when force was used? That's how the situation is viewed AND reviewed. A police officer does not have to be shot at before shooting to stop the threat. The assumption was he was armed (which finicum was) and he reached into his pocket after being told not to move. He should have listened. There are exceptions to Tennessee vs garner.

Example:

Dashcam footage of a pursuit and fatal shooting recorded from 2 dashcams at 2 different angles. The vehicle pursuit ends in a parking lot where the suspect gets out of the vehicle and refuses verbal commands.


Watch this video first and you will see what looks like a suspect being shot in the back without justification.



Watch this video second and you will see something completely different.



I point these video's out as an example of totality of circumstances, what the officer's perceived from their respective positions and the actions of the suspect and how those actions can change the dynamics of the incident.


Another example -
A civil rights leader who held protests against the Phoenix police shooting of an unarmed subject. He took up the offer from the Maricopa County Sheriff's office to come and do some of the training law enforcement goes through - specifically 3 different shoot / don't shoot scenarios.

He was armed with a training weapon and holster. He was not told the details with the exception of the initial setup / call for service.


Call #1
A report of a man looking into cars in a parking lot.

Call #2
A report of 2 males fighting.

Call #3
A report of a possible burglar walking down the street.

The results -


Its easy to throw rocks from the outside. It's courage to try and fix things from the inside.

a reply to: potmuncheR

To be clear, the officer who shot him thought he was reaching for a well documented weapon. An OSP officer shot him and he had been briefed by the FBI. The OSP did everything correctly. I blame the FBI for the failures.

Also, he JUMPED out of the truck with his hands up which he had not yet been asked to do, and he had almost just killed an OSP officer with the vehicle. The OSP showed HUGE restraint in not shooting before they did. Again, the FBI failed there.

I believe the "failures" on the part of the FBI were intentional failures.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I've said it in many posts. I feel the OSP did a great job of showing restraint through the whole process.

I blame the FBI for setting the roadblock up on a blind turn and the agent who opened fire on Finnicum when he exited the vehicle.

I do believe Finnicum left the vehicle as a distraction because the women were in the back seat and they HAD been shot at (legally) as they were trying to brake for the road block.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Trying to go around the road block? Did we watch different videos? From the cell phone footage it seems clear that he sees the road block and tries to brake (as seen from everyone lurching forward) and then swerves when he knows he is going to hit it. The road block was setup in such a way that even going the speed limit you would be caught by surprise. It should have been on a straightaway. There were plenty available. 5:20ish is when the road block comes out of nowhere for them.


a reply to: Xcathdra

Keep telling yourself that....

originally posted by: potmuncheR
originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Reply to KYLEPLATINUM

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

That alone is attempted murder.


Again, could have been completely avoidable. Yes, about those people in the truck, who all had an option to get out but decided to stay in the truck.... It's all about your actions folks and they all chose theirs.


Absolutely correct, it was completely avoidable. All the officers had to do was NOT shoot at him when getting out of the truck with his HANDS UP. At that point he was surrendering.

As for those people deciding to stay in the truck, why wouldn't they. They just witnessed Finnicum being shot at with his HANDS UP as he exited the vehicle, then being shot dead.

And again I would have to agree with you, it is all about your actions & the did chose theirs, as did the police, THEY CHOSE TO OPEN FIRE.

Actions only work in order, you know like a timeline. Then the actions will end up at some point with a result.
You cant pick and choose the order, it goes one way.

X is still right on this, its about the complete circumstance combined with the officers perspectives.
Nobody on this forum was there, you get your single perspective view from your comfy computer/device screen to cling on and never let go of your knee jerk emotional reaction.

No murder, no ambush, not a blind corner. To be technical, hands were not up, they were out (in an un-descided position).

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Again, more incorrect information.

It was a blind turn, the video makes that obvious.

It was an ambush, by definition. A legal road block yes, but still an ambush.

Hands were absolutely up, well above his shoulders.

You've either intentionally lied to yourself or never actually watched the videos. You're trying to look smart agreeing with people who are smarter than you. It's not working out too well.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: kyleplatinum



You've either intentionally lied to yourself or never actually watched the videos. You're trying to look smart agreeing with people who are smarter than you. It's not working out too well.

Exactly what I was going to say to you! Keep clinging to it, disregard reality and facts.

The support for criminals and the bashing of police officers in this country is disgusting!

I agree with the people that are correct. I will not comment on your intelligence, that would be rude.

Here's an update:

Bullet casings disappear from LaVoy Finicum shooting scene, sources say

Five FBI agents assigned to the traffic stop told investigators that none of them fired at Finicum's Dodge pickup after it crashed at their roadblock. Oregon investigators, however, concluded that one agent fired twice at the truck, hitting it once in the roof and missing on the second shot. A state trooper later described to investigators seeing two rifle casings in the area where the agents were posted. Detectives tasked with collecting evidence didn't find the casings, police reports indicate.

They also announced they had evidence that an FBI agent fired at Finicum's truck but didn't disclose the shots. The agent and four of his colleagues then took "specific actions" afterward, they said, but offered no other details.

Nelson and Norris alerted federal officials to their findings. The FBI agents now are under criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general.

Source

a reply to: dreamingawake

This part still makes no sense to me. They would have been fine in using deadly force. Its almost as if the FBI wanted to lay the actions solely on OSP.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's very quirky because they knew there were airborn cameras rotating overhead around the scene and they knew the shooting scene would be gone over with a fine-toothed comb afterward and they knew OSP troopers would know what they did. What they did was out in the open so....



Is it just a diversionary tactic because this elite crew doesn't have to account for it's actions because it's of a different genre? They used copper-colored cased bullets. The OSP used silver-colored cased bullets. They took their copper-colored casings and denied having fired at the truck or LaVoy.

One of the bullets that hit LaVoy "perfectly mushroomed" and fell out of his clothes when he was moved a bit. As far as I know that bullet was collected by someone unknown in the report.

I'm not positive a big deal is being made about the HRT's actions before and after the shooting for the reason given.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You don't even know the definition of an ambush bro. Even after it was given to you twice...

Where have I ever bashed a police officer? Nice logical fallacy. You probably don't even know you commited one.

a reply to: tweetie

The only other thing I can think of is the Feds didn't think they were subject to Oregon state law when they fired, thinking their status as Federal agents would not subject them to the investigation at the local level but Federal level only.

Thats just a guess.

a reply to: raymundoko

It was not am ambush, it was a road block. No amount of willful ignorance or wishful thinking changes the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's similar to what I've written. They operate under different rules.

a reply to: tweetie

True but when they are involved in a joint action the dynamics change. This is baffling to me on so many levels.

Even then there would be no reason to lie to the local investigators. There has to be another reason for that action by the agents on scene. If it was the difference in agency its an easy contact my agency for our reports and set up a time to interview us pending approval. They would not need to lie about firing a duty weapon.

Something else is behind this action.