Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

a reply to: raymundoko

I think what you've presented about why the FBI denied firing shots at LaVoy when he exited the truck and later removed evidence from the scene is very compelling. It makes a lot of good, old-fashioned sense. I may have to give the OSP credit for refusing to be taken advantage of by the FBI.

``````````````````````````````

I'm including links below for anyone interested who hasn't already seen them. That brief sequence, of those two shots being fired at LaVoy right after he exits the truck, (I'm convinced) is intentionally "blobbed out" via editing of the FBI-provided video before it was released to the public as shown by Peter Offermann, someone with the tools, skill and know-how to evaluate videos.

Part 4) An Analysis of...

That link is taken from the next link, showing all of Peter's work on the video up until now. There are also more related posts he made about those few moments:

Ongoing Analysis...

I'm on board with that particular aspect of Peter's work -- specifically, the pre-editing of the FBI video by the FBI to blob out those moments).

It's taken me way too long to post this. It happens every time I try to link to Peter's work.

His website has been severely compromised since he began posting his analysis and he writes about it.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

It's pretty simple Ray. Ambush: "a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position."

They were in plain sight! Not concealed!

Keep on with the dis-info, your doing great!

No Ambush. No Murder.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Oh my goodness. You just doubled down on being unclear on how definitions work...(I mean, you don't even use you're correctly.)

If one man stops a car and 8 other people jump out of bushes and attack the car is that an ambush? The one guy was in plain sight after all.

Only 2 officers were in a visible location. All other officers were in a concealed position. On top of that, the stop was on a left curve so that it would be visible to the driver side of the vehicle last. Offerman did a good job of showing how even for a vehicle traveling the speed limit a driver would only have seconds to react, which is not enough time in a big vehicle on an icy road. We see this in the video.

Now lets see you be dense a bit more. It's quite sad and funny at the same time.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: kyleplatinum


Only 2 officers were in a visible location.

There you go, key word "visible", now wasn't that easy. Definitions are tricky sometimes huh?

Give it up, your dramatic ambush, murder is not correct no matter how dense you say I am.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

And how many were in a concealed position? Are you seriously this dense? It's called a Pincer Ambush, where the middle point is obvious and the sides are concealed for an attack. It's an actual law enforcement and military tactic. It's getting embarrassing for you.

Now let's discuss your logical fallacy:

murder is not correct

That's a completely different argument that has nothing to do with them being ambushed. You probably don't even know which fallacy you committed. What you're attempting to do is shift the subject to an argument about if they were murdered or not because you are 1000% wrong on what an ambush is or is not.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: kyleplatinum

And how many were in a concealed position? Are you seriously this dense? It's called a Pincer Ambush, where the middle point is obvious and the sides are concealed for an attack. It's an actual law enforcement and military tactic. It's getting embarrassing for you.

Now let's discuss your logical fallacy:

murder is not correct

That's a completely different argument that has nothing to do with them being ambushed. You probably don't even know which fallacy you committed. What you're attempting to do is shift the subject to an argument about if they were murdered or not because you are 1000% wrong on what an ambush is or is not.

So you pick 4 words from a sentence and put them on their own which takes it out of context to discuss that it is a logical fallacy?? You are definitely hard at work! Give me a break, then you pick and choose the definition of Ambush which you are still incorrect.

You said "And how many were in a concealed position?" It's all concealed or none, completely concealed is an Ambush! FACT is: the road block which consisted of vehicles and people were still in plain sight in the middle of the road (visible). They put their-selves in a pursuit which put them in a position to where a road block was set in place to stop them, not ambush them.

Stop assuming that I am trying to attempt anything. Dense no. Correct yes.

Pincer Ambush, funny how you say that though... because it's a Pincer movement, yes I'm getting technical but details must be correct. You can't just pick and choose your words to fit your theory or to make your ambush claim valid.

It was a road block plain and simple. If I'm dense, then your confused.

a reply to: raymundoko

Finicum was not murdered and the reports substantiate that fact.

It was not an ambush and the facts substantiate that fact.

Give it up.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

So you Googled pincer ambush and saw it was associated with pincer movement? Then you chose to omit that it's called an ambush...


Pincer Ambush

Pincer ambush – A "U"-shaped attack with the sides concealed and the middle held back until the enemy advances, at which point the concealed sides ambush them

So your density has progressed to dishonesty.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It was an ambush by definition. Just because it was a legal road block doesn't mean it wasn't an ambush.

a reply to: raymundoko

It was not an ambush, regardless of how much people wish it were to give them something to bitch about the government about.

If you want to go down this road then an argument can be made that by doing what Finicum did was an attempt to "ambush" the officers when he tried to kill one with his truck and the others when he jumped out of his truck armed and reaching for his gun.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That indicates you also do not know the definition of an ambush...you both are making yourself look extremely uneducated attempting to redefine what an ambush is.

Were officers/agents on the side of the road in a concealed position which they then advanced/fired from after he stopped? If yes, then ambush...

It's that easy. Legal? Yes, absolutely. Still an ambush. Acceptable form of road block? Yes, absolutely. Still an ambush. Does the fact it was by definition an ambush mean Lavoy was murdered? No.

Argue that he wasn't murdered, not that it wasn't an ambush. You'll lose the latter of that all day and night.

Oh boy, I just noticed this was said by:

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You said "And how many were in a concealed position?" It's all concealed or none, completely concealed is an Ambush!

How sad, Truly sad. I've already explained how you were dishonest about a Pincer Ambush. You probably had no idea what that was until I wrote it down for you to google, but ALL have to be concealed for it to be an ambush? We are talking Pt levels of density here.

Flanking Maneuver

One type is employed in an ambush, where a friendly unit performs a surprise attack from a concealed position. Other units may be hidden to the sides of the ambush site to surround the enemy, but care must be taken in setting up fields of fire to avoid friendly fire.

So the main force engages the enemy while flanked concealed forced employ an ambush assault.

If any portion of your force is concealed and attacks from that concealed position they have just ambushed the target person or force.

a reply to: raymundoko

and yet it was not an ambush.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You think the word ambush is a negative word. It isn't and you don't have to defend a wrong stance because you think taking part in an ambush is a bad thing...Don't come off as uneducated just so you can defend a position from ignorance.

to give them something to bitch about the government about

You are wrong. The fact it was an ambush isn't what the problem is. The fact it was an ambush isn't what people can bitch about...The ambush was totally legal and setup as most law enforcement agency's would. It is an acceptable tactic in both military and law enforcement.

I think the placement of the road block is what is questionable. Use google maps. There were DOZENS of straightaways, some hundreds of meters long, which could have been used. They used a left turn, which has been shown that it WAS a blind turn given that a driver going the speed limit would only have seconds to react. This is proven by the video. The FBI botched the placement of the road block, either on purpose or just through buffoonery is what is questionable.

The roadblock was setup in a way that the driver would either have to slam into it (even with brakes applied trying to stop on an icy road) or swerve to miss it. Both scenarios allow for the vehicle to be fired upon legally. Then a trained "elite" sniper misses a target impeded by snow, TWICE. That same sniper then fails to disclose that he fired those shots, and when asks later makes a false statement. On top of that, the agent next to him also lies and those two agents then discuss it with all the other present agents and convince them to lie as well. Put all these together and the FBI has created a situation that puts the target in flight or fight mode and creates an air of conspiracy around the entire situation.

The parallels to Ruby Ridge and Waco are glaringly obvious.

a reply to: raymundoko

You are done sir.

When the dis-info technique doesn't work, does that upset you.

Keep grasping for different types of "Ambush" to list. Still not going to stop the fact that is was not an ambush.

Good day.

a reply to: raymundoko

if the vehicle is already unlawfully fleeing law enforcement to begin with, who the hell cares where the road block is? Fact: he obeys the orders of law enforcement when originally pulled over, and none of this happens. Everything happening after he fled is his own damn fault.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

I've already said that more than a few times. He should have complied at the first stop. The FBI intel said he probably wouldn't comply.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

I've already said that more than a few times. He should have complied at the first stop. The FBI intel said he probably wouldn't comply.

and that's supported by the fact Finicum said on tv he wont go to jail and that if anyone points a gun at him he will point one back.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Hah, really? You put Ambush in ""? Continue to look uneducated. That's on you.

a reply to: raymundoko

No I just think you are clinging to a false narrative that hinges on the fallacy that finicum was ambushed when in reality he was not.

We know this because he was stopped in a valid / lawful traffic stop and fled the scene. Had you not had that initial encounter then your false ambush narrative might hold water. Since that initial contact occurred there was no ambush as he knew law enforcement was trying to stop and arrest him.

Finicum was not ambushed.
Finicum was not murdered.
Finicums own stupidity resulted in his own death.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Jesus bro. BY DEFINITION IT WAS AN AMBUSH. You can't escape that fact. You can say it wasn't an ambush until you are blue in the face, but it was a designed Pincer Ambush. The flanks were concealed and advanced once the middle had done it's job. Again, you think that's a negative thing, it isn't. It's just a word. A word you can't decide to redefine because you think it has negative connotations.

I also want to point out I have come back at you several times with definitions, examples and sources. You have done nothing but say "nuh uh". It's kind of pathetic and I expected more out of a representative of law enforcement.