Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

I'd like to know:

1) if any devices were used to jam their phones, or if they just 'happened' to be in a dead zone and pulled over there.

2) Why they set up a road block around a 100 yard bend, on wet roads, in SNOW, which would give him no time to safely stop.

3) Who fired the shots while he was exiting with hands up

4) Why they fired at an occupied vehicle with no clear threat

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Had he complied he would be alive.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Totality of circumstances... Not just the final shooting but everything leading up to it. It was justified under law by Finicums actions.

And the court of public opinion is saying otherwise. When we look at the totality of circumstances, we see that federal agencies provoked the conflict, putting many lives at risk, putting Finicum and the others in the vehicle in an absolute no-win situation, and killing a man in cold blood.

Playing the failure-to-comply card is getting as old as the race card.

You have 20 seconds to comply....

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Had he complied he would be alive.

Seems he was being shot at and under attack, without cause.

Fleeing a stop is not a cause to be fired upon, from what I understand of Rules of Engagement.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

There are circumstances that allow it. And had he complied he would be alive.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

There are circumstances that allow it. And had he complied he would be alive.

There are? Which. I'd like to know.

The lengths you guys go to defend an armed guy is amazing..but a black person flinchs towards a cop, well he should have complied or it was "justified".

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Had he complied he would be alive.

True, but for a catastrophe to happen, you need many safety to fail. That was only the first one.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

1) How would cops know what 'side' he kept his gun on?

I've thought about that. Maybe because it would not be safe or practical to drive while holstered on the hip, and therefore would be in a side holster or pocket, and assuming he is right handed the weapon would be on the left? I hope someone else responds who knows better.

This is probably a necessary and routine precaution for cops in legitimate concern for their safety and lives; but it's chilling to think how that could also be used to set Finicum up.

originally posted by: FullBloodedNative
The lengths you guys go to defend an armed guy is amazing..but a black person flinchs towards a cop, well he should have complied or it was "justified".

Excuse me but OJ Simpson drove right by me on the 405 Freeway, when it was thought he had a gun in the back of the Bronco.

I saw 7 Helos, and about 24 units involved in the chase. And he was allowed to go untouched on the 405, until he safely got to his house. This was a man wanted for double murder.

Just throwing that out there.

The other issue this brings into question......

At what point after being fired upon, ILLEGALLY do you finally have a right to defend yourself?

8 shots fired, 6 from osp and the remaining 2 from the FBI agent under investigation.

ktvz -
FBI agents under investigation in LaVoy Finicum shooting death OSP agents actions called 'justified'; FBI agents didn't report firing shots


Deschutes County Sheriffs Office - Harney County officer involved shooting investigation

Link contains reports / video.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Would you let's someone shoot at you without defending just because you miss judge something?
I won't.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The only right he had was to comply. He is not allowed to resist a detention / stop / arrest, legal or not. The courts get to decide legality, not police and certainly not roadside.

Time synced audio

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

WIKIPEDIA

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't know if you misread, but it wasn't the FBI that shot him dead.

I never made any reference whatsoever to who shot Finicum dead.

I referred you to the link because of the discussion, quotes and many links there, about Finicum and/or the vehicle being shot at before it stopped at the roadblock.

Since there is an active ATS thread and discussion, I considered that the proper etiquette and protocol.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

That ruling applies to fleeing felons with the exception of when the person fleeing presents an imminant danger to the police / public at large.

Next time read it all.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The only right he had was to comply. He is not allowed to resist a detention / stop / arrest, legal or not. The courts get to decide legality, not police and certainly not roadside.

Time synced audio

Resisting arrest, nor fleeing are grounds for death. Sorry.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Neat! Thank you

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The only right he had was to comply. He is not allowed to resist a detention / stop / arrest, legal or not. The courts get to decide legality, not police and certainly not roadside.

This being the case why the urgency to stop him right there and then ?....lets face it this went on for weeks if not years if we include the 2014 bundy stand off....you still have not answered why they did not wait for the meeting with the sheriff and then arrest him ....