LaVoy Finicum shooting: FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements

a reply to: Xcathdra

I appreciate and can understand your point of view but I disagree.

Much like when the HRT surrounded Randy Weaver, their actions became a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. With Randy, the government came after a man who lived in fear that the government was out to get him. With LaVoy, the police and feds shot at a man who was pretty sure he was going to die by being shot by cops/feds.

You would think the HOSTAGE RESCUE TEAM would think through these scenarios before purposefully putting civilians in them, no matter what the civilian did that was illegal. You would think the Hostage Rescue Team would actually be trying to rescue someone and talk them down (even though obviously there were no hostages in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge). You would think the HRT would be trained in how to de-escalate a situation, not be the first ones to get scared/angry/whatever and open fire.

a reply to: hombero

Let's not forget that if he hadn't illegally occupied (and destroyed) government property then there would have been no police stop with the FBI present. Then he wouldn't have died in that set of circumstances.

No one's forgetting what Finicum did... nor are we forgetting what he did NOT do. Neither are we forgetting what the FBI did and did not do. The bad behavior of Finicum does not excuse the worse behavior of the feds. And while we're in the process of not forgetting things, let's not forget our absolute inalienable right to due process, legal representation, full discovery, and a trial by a jury of our peers. Let's also not forget that law enforcement is not judge, jury and EXECUTIONER. And most of all let's not forget that Finicum has paid the ultimate penalty for his real (and concocted) misdeeds and is no longer a threat to anyone (if he ever was to begin with)... while those LEOs who orchestrated this assassination of an American citizen are still a threat to ALL OF US and have paid no penalty for their crimes.

Cops / agents wrong or not we're doing their jobs (arguably poorly). Which constructive thing was he doing?

If you have to ask the question, I don't think you'd understand the answer.

Greed . . .uranium . . .public lands . . .generational use by ranchers . . .Clintons . . .greed . . .

Deceit . . .Clintons . . .greed . . .

HRT ? BS

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: CraftyArrow

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Boadicea
those who knowingly and deliberately orchestrated a deadman's roadblock knowing someone would die

I'll give you this too.

Finicum hit a cop with his car. That's all the excuse they needed to kill him. Fact is ... he gave them the excuse they were looking for.

You mean the cop that jump out in front of the truck, who was already shooting before the truck crashed.

Do you rewrite history much?

No he means the law enforcement officer who had to dive out of the way before Finnicum could hit him. Based on what occurred using deadly force at first encounter was allowable.

You mean the officer who was saved by LaVoy Finicum, by dodging their road block of death. You know damn well all of those officers are guilty, they murdered a hero.

Here's a new video with LaVoy Finicum's Widow Speaking about his murder.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: GuidedKill

and Finnicum could have easily stopped and remained stopped the first time he was pulled over.

He didnt.

a reply to: Excallibacca

HRT does in fact resuce people as one of their main goals / responsibilities.

They werent trying to rescue Finnicum, they were trying to take him into custody.

Finally people need to get over the name Hostage rescue team name and stop restricting its meaning to solely hostage rescue. They are a swat team and are trained in more areas than just rescue.

Finnicum would still be alive had he not taken the course of action he did.

a reply to: imitator

No I mean the officer that had to dive out of the way so Finnicum didnt hit him.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GuidedKill

and Finnicum could have easily stopped and remained stopped the first time he was pulled over.

He didnt.

They fired shots at him at the stop... to drive him into the roadblock... which was actually an ambush with snipers positioned to kill.
He did stop when they decided to pull him over.
Why did he run?
Because they shot at him without provocation.

originally posted by: NightFlight
a reply to: Excallibacca

Now that James Comey can't cover it up any more, fair trials should hopefully proceed.

There's still McCabe to deal with.

a reply to: butcherguy

He was shot at for failing to comply with verbal commands at the first stop.
He was shot at for almost hitting an officer at the second encounter.
He was shot and killed for failing to comply with verbal commands while reaching for his pocket in the 3rd encounter.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: CraftyArrow

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Boadicea
those who knowingly and deliberately orchestrated a deadman's roadblock knowing someone would die

I'll give you this too.

Finicum hit a cop with his car. That's all the excuse they needed to kill him. Fact is ... he gave them the excuse they were looking for.

You mean the cop that jump out in front of the truck, who was already shooting before the truck crashed.

Do you rewrite history much?

No he means the law enforcement officer who had to dive out of the way before Finnicum could hit him. Based on what occurred using deadly force at first encounter was allowable.

The FBI..who have been caught in a lie says he tried to run down a officer who was just standing there..uh huh. Suuuuuure well believe the"official story" over cellphone footage.
And Also Police are not to pre meditate killing someone. That road block was set up to get that result around a curve.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That doesn't address the issue of them shooting first.

And Finicum did not purposefully attempt to run anyone over. Not in the videos I saw. Try again.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Same with Mike Brown I reckon?

Meh. I'm just a Kraut, but this reminds me of other lawful orders carried out on this side of the pond, which led straight into two world wars, a fricken genocide and the mofos from the Stasi.
At some point you'll have to realize what this kind of brazen spinning achieves. It isn't for the good of the people, it's the legitimization of more and more violence from an already militarized police state.

Your lack of sensitivity for the scope of this topic is astonishing, actually. Denial of assistance after shooting a suspect (for leaving his truck) is another point you didn't even mention. Surprise!

a reply to: yuppa

Or you can watch the drone video released and see it for yourself.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Xcathdra

That doesn't address the issue of them shooting first.

And Finicum did not purposefully attempt to run anyone over. Not in the videos I saw. Try again.

Well it does... The first shots occurred at the first attempted traffic stop, where Finnicum fled the stop. The second occurred by the FBI agent and the 3rd came from State police when he refused to comply and reached for his pockets.

Finally, reference the officer diving out of the way. The standard for reviewing that is what the officers perceived when forced was used. 20/20 hindsight cannot be used to determine reasonableness of an officers actions.

So while you and others see it one way from drone video, using a vantage point not available to officers on the ground when it occurred, the standard is what those on the ground who were involved perceived.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Same with Mike Brown I reckon?

A lawful shooting in order to stop the threat he presented t the officer. A conclusion a grand jury reached as well while dealing with witnesses who lied during that grand jury hearing.

Yes - the exact same standard applies when reviewing an officers use of force. It is a scotus ruling standard.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Meh. I'm just a Kraut, but this reminds me of other lawful orders carried out on this side of the pond, which led straight into two world wars, a fricken genocide and the mofos from the Stasi.
At some point you'll have to realize what this kind of brazen spinning achieves. It isn't for the good of the people, it's the legitimization of more and more violence from an already militarized police state.

Because you are German I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that you dont understand our laws, scotus rulings defining those laws and the standards established by scotus for an officers use of force.

Trying to compare this / pther incidents to the nazis only reinforces the issues foriegners have when they arent familiar with our legal system.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Your lack of sensitivity for the scope of this topic is astonishing, actually. Denial of assistance after shooting a suspect (for leaving his truck) is another point you didn't even mention. Surprise!

Not a lack of sensitivity at all. I just happen to know what im talking about being im in the law enforcement profession.

There is a legal standard when it comes to emergency res ponders acting above their level of training. If you take an action, say medically, to an injured person and you cause more damage you can be held liable for it. Generally speaking those laws dont apply to civilians (some exceptions exist)...

Law Enforcement in the US have no legal duty to render first aid (in general with some exceptions). Some department policies can require it however they must provide the proper equipment to the officer to enforce it if the officer chooses not to act. The secondary issue is safety of the officers and surrounding bystanders.

I dont expect people who are not US citizens to understand the way our laws work and I dont expect US citizens to be versed in those same laws or police procedures. Its one of the reasons I post in threads like these. People can take what they want away from it.

My point is watching / reading about an encounter where police shoot a suspect is not a realistic or accurate representation of what occurred in that the officers didnt have that info at the time it occurred. You guys have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight as well as information not known to officers at the time.

I doubt you would be happy to be involved in a situation where you have to take someones life only to be Monday morning quarterbacked by people who weren't present who had the benefit of information not available to you when it occurred.

just my 2 cents.

Shoot or don't shoot?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, I appreciate where you're coming from and I understand your arguments.

That said, you haven't convinced me that there was no other course of action but to shoot a civilian.

a reply to: Excallibacca

There absolutely was another course of action - Finnicum could have complied and not resisted.

The moment he fled the traffic stop, and taking everything else into account, he forced the course of action the encounter took.

He could have easily complied from the start.

Respectfully - Law Enforcement encounters are always a 2 to tango scenario. Developing a mindset where the only courses of action can only come from law enforcement is problematic. Finnicum had multiple chances to comply and didn't, restricting law enforcement options and responses.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Law enforcement are the ones who are trained for the scenarios and swore an oath. Finicum wasn't and didn't. The LEOs involved bore responsibility for that situation at the expense of Finicum, a taxpayer.

While I in no way believe that everything LaVoy Finicum did was right, I can't accept that setting him up to die was right. There was no justice that day.