# Actual video of shooting



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

of Lavoy Finicum . [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBNC-ZA9OKE&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop[/ame]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And it didn't take months and multiple court actions to get it. What could they be hiding with this tape? Oh yeah, when the evidence of things like video actually support official narratives there's no need to hide it from view. 

I'm sorry the man died. I'm equally sorry that the officers involved had to put themselves in harms way but I'm grateful he didn't hit the officer with his vehicle or reach the gun he had in his pocket and harm someone else.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

He did not have a gun in his pocket,he was reacting from the first shot. He had left the vehicle to protect the women in the car.He had left all his weapons at the ranch even his pistol. There is videos of that also.



Here is a video of BLM setting fires arround the ranches to force them out. 80 cattle burned/dead ect. 
I stopped watching when they showed the burned cattle...
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_iT7EPBeNk[/ame]


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> I'm sorry the man died. I'm equally sorry that the officers involved had to put themselves in harms way but I'm grateful he didn't hit the officer with his vehicle *or reach the gun he had in his pocket and harm someone else.*


And there it is right there. It's funny how when black men are shot, people are so quick to defend the police saying "But he could have had a weapon!!". When a white man (who was associated with an armed group of men) reaches towards his coat, all of the sudden people say he was shot for no good reason.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And the conspiracy continues. At least the video was probably taken from a black helicopter.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> And there it is right there. It's funny how when black men are shot, people are so quick to defend the police saying "But he could have had a weapon!!". When a white man (who was associated with an armed group of men) reaches towards his coat, all of the sudden people say he was shot for no good reason.


This. Or a black kid with a toy gun. Only white lives matter to some people, in my opinion. It's absolutely sickening.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

7thswan said:


> He did not have a gun in his pocket,he was reacting from the first shot. He had left the vehicle to protect the women in the car.He had left all his weapons at the ranch even his pistol. There is videos of that also.


How were the officers supposed to know he wasn't armed? And why was he attempting to go around a road block? These are all the same arguments used to support police who shoot unarmed black men.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

At least the "white lives matter" crowd isn't burning downtown areas and looting stores and businesses.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cabin Fever said:


> At least the "white lives matter" crowd isn't burning downtown areas and looting stores and businesses.....


Yes, actually killing unarmed people is sooo much better. Good gravy. :facepalm:


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

He looked like he was reaching for something to me. With officers on both sides of you, "Hands up" means "Hands up". Given all their rhetoric, him getting out and running around, and him reaching repeatedly for something makes this seem like a reasonable shooting.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

7thswan said:


> He did not have a gun in his pocket,he was reacting from the first shot. He had left the vehicle to protect the women in the car.He had left all his weapons at the ranch even his pistol. There is videos of that also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where is it that you are getting that he wasn't armed? 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/28/robert-lavoy-finicum-shooting-death-video-released/

&#8220;On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward the pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9 mm semiautomatic handgun in that pocket,&#8221; said FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing at a late Thursday press conference shown on KOIN-TV live stream"
He was interviews and filmed many times and was armed every time as far as I know. He clearly and plainly stated that he intended to fight and wouldn't allow himself to be sent to prison. So what do you expect officers to do? Stand there and wait to be shot by him?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> This. Or a black kid with a toy gun. Only white lives matter to some people, in my opinion. It's absolutely sickening.


So now you approve of shooting unarmed men?
As long as they are white hicks from the west, fly over country nobodies, you approve?
The man was on a grocery run, of course Obama ordered him killed.
Man, do I feel safe in this regime.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Declan said:


> He looked like he was reaching for something to me. With officers on both sides of you, "Hands up" means "Hands up". Given all their rhetoric, him getting out and running around, and him reaching repeatedly for something makes this seem like a reasonable shooting.


He had his hands up.
The first fed shot him, he grabbed his wound and the second fed shot him some more.
But, like I said, as long as he wasn't black, who cares right?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Here is fbi site. long version here. Yes, they did say they were armed. I can't watch vid.right now.https://www.fbi.gov/portland/press-...ation-at-the-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> How were the officers supposed to know he wasn't armed? And why was he attempting to go around a road block? These are all the same arguments used to support police who shoot unarmed black men.


I've seen reports that said he did in fact have a 9mm handgun.
It's obvious he wasn't "surrendering" or standing still as an intelligent person would have done


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> He had his hands up.
> The first fed shot him, he grabbed his wound and the second fed shot him some more.
> But, like I said, as long as he wasn't black, who cares right?


He wasn't grabbing a wound, he was reaching for his gun. 
Curious: what will you say when/if the med examiners report comes back corroborating the video and FBI version of events? 

I'm really tired of this baloney of polarizing events along the lines of race and politics. People are actually hoping and trying to convince people of what they want to be true. What we should all hope for is that the truth comes out. 
If a black person commits a crime, they should pay for it, just like a white person should. 
If a democratic congressman does something illegal, he or she should pay for it, just like a republican should. 

I'm not sure on what planet anyone could justify what these people did at the Malheur refuge, or some of the tactics that BLM (Black Lives Matter) used. 
Bad behavior and criminal behavior is wrong and we should all hope that it's caught and stopped regardless if the perpetrator is "on our side" or not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> He did not have a gun in his pocket,he was reacting from the first shot. He had left the vehicle to protect the women in the car.He had left all his weapons at the ranch even his pistol. There is videos of that also.


How can you claim he was "trying to protect the others in the vehicle" when he's the one who put them in danger by running the roadblocks?

I realize you've chosen your side in this, but at least make an attempt to use the facts along with some logic instead of just the rhetoric.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> He wasn't grabbing a wound, he was reaching for his gun.
> Curious: what will you say when/if the med examiners report comes back corroborating the video and FBI version of events?
> 
> I'm really tired of this baloney of polarizing events along the lines of race and politics. People are actually hoping and trying to convince people of what they want to be true. What we should all hope for is that the truth comes out.
> ...


The vantage point was not clear enough for me to say with absolute certainty that his actions were threatening to the officers IMO but the rest of your post is spot on.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

basketti said:


> He wasn't grabbing a wound, he was reaching for his gun.
> Curious: what will you say when/if the med examiners report comes back corroborating the video and FBI version of events?
> 
> I'm really tired of this baloney of polarizing events along the lines of race and politics. People are actually hoping and trying to convince people of what they want to be true. What we should all hope for is that the truth comes out.
> ...



You guys wailed to the rafters when a black man attacked a cop and was shot.
You crowed when rioters burned the town when a black man was shot while beating a hispanic man's head into the concrete.
Now that it's a white guy gunned down you all say "well, he had it coming"
I agree, if he was reaching for his gun, the cops acted correctly.
That has yet to be proven.
But even you have to admit it's a double standard.
If he'd been black the forest would be ablaze and you know it, and you'd (collective you) would call it justice.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How can you claim he was "trying to protect the others in the vehicle" when he's the one who put them in danger by running the roadblocks?
> 
> I realize you've chosen your side in this, but at least make an attempt to use the facts along with some logic instead of just the rhetoric.


You've chosen your side it seems.
Why not wait for the evidence before you condemn the dead man?
I wonder, will Obama make a speech, rub a little onion in his eye and call for FBI reform?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I agree, if he was reaching for his gun, the cops acted correctly.
> That has yet to be proven.


It's already been reported he was armed, and the video shows he wasn't surrendering.

Even when it's "proven" you will still say "Obama and Lynch lied and it's all a cover-up" :shrug:


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> He had his hands up.
> The first fed shot him, he grabbed his wound and the second fed shot him some more.
> But, like I said, as long as he wasn't black, who cares right?


I don't know what color he was, but I don't see what you see. since he was pointing toward his vehicle at one point between putting his hands down back up down back up down


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> And the conspiracy continues. At least the video was probably taken from a black helicopter.





Irish Pixie said:


> This. Or a black kid with a toy gun. Only white lives matter to some people, in my opinion. It's absolutely sickening.





basketti said:


> I'm really tired of this baloney of polarizing events along the lines of race and politics.


I agree
Just like the left making every shooting of a black criminal about race.
But we know that's all about votes, so maybe it doesn't matter


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I agree
> Just like the left making every shooting of a black criminal about race.
> But we know that's all about votes, so maybe it doesn't matter


that isn't even true. I'm fairly left and I don't. I want the guilty person to pay regardless of color. You are constantly painting with too broad of a brush and stereotyping. 

There are conservatives whom I admire even though I might not agree with everything they stand for and there are liberals I intensely dislike even though I agree with their stances. I dont think the end justifies the means.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> You guys wailed to the rafters when a black man attacked a cop and was shot.
> You crowed when rioters burned the town when a black man was shot while beating a hispanic man's head into the concrete.
> Now that it's a white guy gunned down you all say "well, he had it coming"
> I agree, if he was reaching for his gun, the cops acted correctly.
> ...


Where did I do this?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's already been reported he was armed, and the video shows he wasn't surrendering.
> 
> Even when it's "proven" you will still say "Obama and Lynch lied and it's all a cover-up" :shrug:


Because Obama isn't famous for lies and cover-ups?
I'm willing to wait for the real evidence, but I doubt we'll ever know the truth.
It'll be the cops word against others, and you know who wins that.
But like I said, he wasn't black, so it's ok, nobody will riot, nobody will loot or burn a town.
In the immortal words of Clinton, "What does it matter now?"


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Because Obama isn't famous for lies and cover-ups?
> I'm willing to wait for the real evidence, but I doubt we'll ever know the truth.
> It'll be the cops word against others, and you know who wins that.
> But like I said, he wasn't black, so it's ok, nobody will riot, nobody will loot or burn a town.
> In the immortal words of Clinton, "What does it matter now?"


Has there actually ever been a president who hasn't been accused of lies and coverups?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

basketti said:


> Where did I do this?


 (collective you)


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

basketti said:


> Has there actually ever been a president who hasn't been accused of lies and coverups?


Probably not.
Has there ever been one to flaunt it like Obama does?
He skates by on the color of his skin, if anybody complains, he whines about racism.
You can continue to excuse him if you like, I won't


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yea that honestly doesn't look justified at all.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Probably not.
> Has there ever been one to flaunt it like Obama does?
> He skates by on the color of his skin, if anybody complains, he whines about racism.
> You can continue to excuse him if you like, I won't


I'm not excusing him if it's been proven that he has lied and covered up. I didn't excuse Bush either and I had voted for him.

I think you've gone way beyond seeing anything political clearly or with a semblance of objectivity. You just seem to have descended into a place where you literally hate everyone who disagrees with you politically. 
I'm sorry for that but it's just not really worth responding to your posts because it's always the same thing. I do hope things get better for you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

basketti said:


> I'm not excusing him if it's been proven that he has lied and covered up. I didn't excuse Bush either and I had voted for him.
> 
> I think you've gone way beyond seeing anything political clearly or with a semblance of objectivity. You just seem to have descended into a place where you literally hate everyone who disagrees with you politically.
> I'm sorry for that but it's just not really worth responding to your posts because it's always the same thing.* I do hope things get better for you.*


Thank you


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Was that actually a gun? I mean he did say that he would rather die.... But I can't tell if he pulled something or not.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, actually killing unarmed people is sooo much better. Good gravy. :facepalm:


NO thug lives matter - none. I don't care if thugs are black, white, or green, their lives simply do not matter and we would all be better off if we had a way to identify for sure who they are, gather them up, and cleanse the planet of them.

The man killed in this incident was in no way a thug - he was a patriotic American fighting against the enemies of this country (the US government as led by the Kenyan sewer rat).


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

As usual, this will be armchair quarterbacked with the usual elements of personal prejudice associated with each participant's individual worldview perspective.

My perspective after seeing the birds eye view image is that you had a suspected felon who had already shown himself in possession of both long gun and sidearm during the nearly month long stand off and who had made statements to the authorities and media that he would not be taken alive.

The same suspect chose to run a roadblock with agents in pursuit and although after initially partially raising his arms after exiting his snow bank crashed vehicle , his arms did appear to lower and he appeared to be reaching into his pocket instead of maintaining the safe "see my hands" position.

Maybe he was reaching for the 9 mm. he had in his jacket? Maybe he was reaching for his cellphone to record his own video from his perspective? Maybe he stumbled or started to slide? Maybe the agent perceived an attempted shootout initiating and shot first? Maybe the suspect chose to commit suicide by cop rather than face incarceration?

All that any of us from our armchairs in front of our TVs and PCs can say is that the suspect was acting as a fleeing suspect utilizing offensive actions to start the chase that ended with the loss of life, the suspects actions of the previous weeks established him as a potential threat, the agent who delivered the fatal shot while going home to his family also carries the knowledge that his split second only allowed decision ended a life and despite a long drawn out standoff this situation has not been handled by the authorities as Waco or Ruby Ridge was.

We also know that while Finicum is deceased, Bundy surrendered.

Of course this is only my armchair observation based on what I have read and seen based on reports available until now. Unfortunately in this high tech society we now live in, a picture is no longer worth a thousand words , nor can a thousand words of text ensured to remain unchanged once they reach the worldwide web of information, misinformation, misquotation and malicious editing to support any particular perspective as we have seen in a number of news releases as dependence by the masses on the web has increased.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Was that actually a gun? I mean he did say that he would rather die.... But I can't tell *if he pulled something or not*.


It's been reported he was armed.
Whether he actually got his hands on it makes no difference.
He can be seen reaching for it , which is all that was needed


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

The order for "hands up" is an extremely poor choice that can provide opportunity for a suspect to acquire a weapon, or provide justification for a shooting by an officer. As a suspect raises their hands, typically the hand is going right by the waist. The allows both issues related above. 

When the order given is " Police, stop, don't move", there is automatically restrictions on what the suspect can reasonably do. The hands up stuff is what police learn from watching adam12. What we trained was giving specific restrictions, followed up with specific instructions that limit the ability of someone getting a weapon. By limiting the ability for the weapon, I am also limiting my ability for the need of a shooting. We were doing this training 20 yrs ago. It works.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> And there it is right there. It's funny how when black men are shot, people are so quick to defend the police saying "But he could have had a weapon!!". When a white man (who was associated with an armed group of men) reaches towards his coat, all of the sudden people say he was shot for no good reason.



Yeah cupcake, get used to it.

Battle of Blair Mountain
Leadville massacre
Kent State
Ruby ridge
Waco


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

You jump out of a vehicle while armed and advance towards an officer you have a really good chance of being shot where I come from.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> Yeah cupcake, get used to it.
> 
> Battle of Blair Mountain
> Leadville massacre
> ...


I am scratching my head over your putting Kent State in your list.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been reported he was armed.
> Whether he actually got his hands on it makes no difference.
> He can be seen reaching for it , which is all that was needed


It's relevant in that it is the absolute best evidence that exists. It's a video... So. If the gun is clear to see in his hand, the evidence says one thing. If it's kind of hard to tell, then it comes down to the reports _provided by the guys who shot him_.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FireMaker said:


> The order for "hands up" is an extremely poor choice that can provide opportunity for a suspect to acquire a weapon, or provide justification for a shooting by an officer. As a suspect raises their hands, typically the hand is going right by the waist. The allows both issues related above.
> 
> When the order given is " Police, stop, don't move", there is automatically restrictions on what the suspect can reasonably do. The hands up stuff is what police learn from watching adam12. What we trained was giving specific restrictions, followed up with specific instructions that limit the ability of someone getting a weapon. By limiting the ability for the weapon, I am also limiting my ability for the need of a shooting. We were doing this training 20 yrs ago. It works.


He raised his hands, and then reached back down.

Had he simply put his hands above his head and *remained still*, he would be alive now.

Also keep in mind he had already stopped at one roadblock and then sped away

Getting out of the car was also a big mistake


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> It's relevant in that it is the absolute best evidence that exists. It's a video... So. *If the gun is clear to see in his hand, the evidence says one thing*. If it's kind of hard to tell, then it comes down to the reports _provided by the guys who shot him_.


No, because merely reaching for a weapon gives them justification to use deadly force. 

They have no obligation to wait until he actually grasps the weapon.

All he *needed* to do was stand still


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

RichNC said:


> I am scratching my head over your putting Kent State in your list.


It's been in the news this week
It's an anniversary I believe


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He raised his hands, and then reached back down.
> 
> Had he simply put his hands above his head and *remained still*, he would be alive now.
> 
> ...


A fatal move on his part since he had shooters from two opposing directions. No matter who he was facing, one would only see him reaching down from behind.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been in the news this week
> It's an anniversary I believe


May 4, 1970

I am just trying to work out in my mind, from the rest of the list he posted how in the world Kent State fits in there, other than people were killed by Government Officials...so maybe that is his point?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, because merely reaching for a weapon gives them justification to use deadly force.
> 
> They have no obligation to wait until he actually grasps the weapon.
> 
> All he *needed* to do was stand still


Okay try to follow me here.... If we don't see the weapon, all we have is the cops' word that there was a weapon. I'm just saying, the more clear cut the presence of the gun is, the more solid the video is as evidence. There really isn't an argument to be had here, at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

RichNC said:


> May 4, 1970
> 
> I am just trying to work out in my mind, from the rest of the list he posted how in the world Kent State fits in there, other than people were killed by Government Officials...so maybe that is his point?


That must have been his point, but now I don't know why it was on TV.
I guess it was part of some other subject, but they were interviewing people who were there at the time


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Sure looks like he was going for his piece, AFTER acting like he was going to surrender. Good ploy to get the cops out in the open, he was probably hoping to take a few out before he went down himself. 
Good reaction time by the cops, glad no LEO had to lose his life arresting that fool.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

wiscto said:


> Okay try to follow me here.... If we don't see the weapon, all we have is the cops' word that there was a weapon. I'm just saying, the more clear cut the presence of the gun is, the more solid the video is as evidence. There really isn't an argument to be had here, at all.


 Doesn't matter if he had a gun or not, when you blow through a roadblock, almost run over a cop, fail to comply with a LEO, and reach into your jacket in front of several armed men telling you to surrender (men with legal authority to kill you if they feel threatened while performing their duties), then the question is moot. From the video I saw, the officers did the correct thing and neutralized the threat.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

how can you really tell anything from that video, it is so far away.
from that distance it looked like he was going for a gun. It also looked like he tried to run a man over in his car.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Just an observation not really connected to this directly. One thing I have observed in police raid type videos is that the more officers involved, the more conflicting commands a suspect is given. I am not sure if this is by design, but if one person with a gun is saying don't move, another is saying get down on your needs, and another is saying something else, it is a scenario ripe for someone getting shot for non-compliance or for obeying the officer who ordered them to move by the officer who ordered them not to.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Declan said:


> Just an observation not really connected to this directly. One thing I have observed in police raid type videos is that the more officers involved, the more conflicting commands a suspect is given. I am not sure if this is by design, but if one person with a gun is saying don't move, another is saying get down on your needs, and another is saying something else, it is a scenario ripe for someone getting shot for non-compliance or for obeying the officer who ordered them to move by the officer who ordered them not to.


 Yes, its always dicey when dealing with armed men who have the legal authority to kill you, especially when you just tried to run one of them down with a car. Best option is to keep your hands visible at all times.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

City Bound said:


> how can you really tell anything from that video, it is so far away.
> from that distance it looked like he was going for a gun.


It is hard to see without being able to zoom in. I wondered at first if he was shot because of the way his arms dropped and went up again, almost like a reflexive flinch.
There does come a point where it's almost impossible NOT to get shot, and I think he passed that point when he tried to go around the road block. I actually surprised that everyone in the truck wasn't shot at that point.




> It also looked like he tried to run a man over in his car.


That has been repeated quite a few times and shows how the same event can be seen differently by witnesses.
Watch it again, and rerun it a few times.
Start noticing the parked trucks BEFORE he gets close. Stop it and observe there is no one out in that snow. He is either in the truck or standing up against it.
Then watch as the truck veers off the road and suddenly this man appears - and runs directly into the path of the vehicle.
Sure, you can say he tried running him over, he's dead, what can he say?
But to run into the path of an oncoming vehicle is just as suicidal as the dead man's actions.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> That has been repeated quite a few times and shows how the same event can be seen differently by witnesses.
> Watch it again, and rerun it a few times.
> Start noticing the parked trucks BEFORE he gets close. Stop it and observe there is no one out in that snow. He is either in the truck or standing up against it.
> Then watch as the truck veers off the road and suddenly this man appears - and runs directly into the path of the vehicle.
> ...


 I'l agree on that one, it doesn't appear he went out of his way to run anyone over, but his actions were still reckless, dangerous, and in the end, are what got him killed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Okay try to *follow me here*.... If we don't see the weapon, all we have is the cops' word that there was a weapon. I'm just saying, the more clear cut the presence of the gun is, the more solid the video is as evidence. There really isn't an argument to be had here, at all.


The video is still "solid" even if you see no gun since it's *the motion* which constitutes the *perceived* threat. 

Whether or not he was armed doesn't negate that

The justification to use deadly force depends on "what a reasonable person believes to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm"

I'd say it's quite reasonable to *believe* a guy who has stated publicly more than once he "would not be taken alive", and who just ran a Federal roadblock then jumped out of the car could be a deadly threat.

Your beliefs may vary


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That must have been his point, but now I don't know why it was on TV.
> I guess it was part of some other subject, but they were interviewing people who were there at the time


 For the prime time news ratings surge for the day of course. They didn't have enough to ride Trump , Clinton, Cruz or Sanders or cute or heart wrenching puppy rescue stories for as much rating fodder for the television newscasts that it could provide for a day or two..


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

watched it again. man from road block walks into path of car. twice it seems that man running the road block is reaching for something located at his waist on his left side. 

looks like he was going for a gun.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

City Bound said:


> watched it again. man from road block walks into path of car. twice it seems that man running the road block is reaching for something located at his waist on his left side.
> 
> looks like he was going for a gun.


Of course the agent would go for his weapon as he maintained his road block. The suspect was already armed with an accelerating weapon on four wheels and on the offensive attack. 

As long as the truck was speeding towards and around the road block the LEO was justified to be armed and ready to fire.

When he exited his vehicle and showed signs of being a potential threat the officers faced off with him there were justified to be armed and make the split second lethal force decision if needed.

Have no fear. There will be an in depth DoJ investigation and shooting review.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> It is hard to see without being able to zoom in. I wondered at first if he was shot because of the way his arms dropped and went up again, almost like a reflexive flinch.
> There does come a point where it's almost impossible NOT to get shot, and I think he passed that point when he tried to go around the road block. I actually surprised that everyone in the truck wasn't shot at that point.
> 
> That has been repeated quite a few times and shows how the same event can be seen differently by witnesses.
> ...


I've seen it postulated that the LEO thought Finicum was going to ram the truck he was standing behind and was attempting to move out of the way of the collision


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Shrek said:


> Of course the agent would go for his weapon as he maintained his road block. The suspect was already armed with an accelerating weapon on four wheels and on the offensive attack.
> 
> As long as the truck was speeding towards and around the road block the LEO was justified to be armed and ready to fire.
> 
> ...


 I meant that the guy shot looked like he was going for a gun twice


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've seen it postulated that the LEO thought Finicum was going to ram the truck he was standing behind and was attempting to move out of the way of the collision


Sort of a danged if you do, danged if you don't move by the LEO. If course, it's one he wouldn't have had to have made at all had the suspects stopped at roadblock rather than trying to run it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been reported he was armed.
> 
> Whether he actually got his hands on it makes no difference.
> 
> He can be seen reaching for it , which is all that was needed



Right because we kill anybody who might scare us a little. No real reason needed.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

FireMaker said:


> The order for "hands up" is an extremely poor choice that can provide opportunity for a suspect to acquire a weapon, or provide justification for a shooting by an officer. As a suspect raises their hands, typically the hand is going right by the waist. The allows both issues related above.
> 
> When the order given is " Police, stop, don't move", there is automatically restrictions on what the suspect can reasonably do. The hands up stuff is what police learn from watching adam12. What we trained was giving specific restrictions, followed up with specific instructions that limit the ability of someone getting a weapon. By limiting the ability for the weapon, I am also limiting my ability for the need of a shooting. We were doing this training 20 yrs ago. It works.



That's a great idea. 
Unfortunately they don't show. It on TV or train civilians in it so that's not what we do. 

See the disconnect ?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

City Bound said:


> I meant that the guy shot looked like he was going for a gun twice


 Sorry I thought you were referring to the agent assigned at the roadblock.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

City Bound said:


> watched it again. man from road block walks into path of car. twice it seems that man running the road block is reaching for something located at his waist on his left side.
> 
> looks like he was going for a gun.


From what I've read , there are photos,he wears his weapon on his right hip.
Sorry, I can only bring over bits into this discussion, I'm unable at this time to post properly.So just adding things to think about and check out if one can.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Another thing I'd like to know,is it normal procidure to have a "sniper" in the brush at a roadblock?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

RichNC said:


> I am scratching my head over your putting Kent State in your list.


Does not exactly fit the parameters but it is an example of government killing civilians.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

That guy was dead before he got out of the vehicle. He just did not know it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I see Lavoy with his hands up just before the cop at the bottom of the screen shows recoil from his gun going off. Then Lavoy spins to the left and grabs his side. Then he is shot dead.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> That guy was dead before he got out of the vehicle. He just did not know it.


 No, he had plenty of opportunities to not get killed that day. He made a series of very stupid decisions that cost him his life. Attempting to, or even appearing to, draw a weapon on LEO officers was the final mistake in a series of bad moves.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He raised his hands, and then reached back down.
> 
> Had he simply put his hands above his head and *remained still*, he would be alive now.
> 
> ...


That could be said of most people who inspired the riots and lootings.
But then this guys doesn't have Sharpton and Obama egging people on


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Yes, its always dicey when dealing with armed men who have the legal authority to kill you, especially when you just tried to run one of them down with a car. Best option is to keep your hands visible at all times.


You probably feel the same way about Michael Brown?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> No, he had plenty of opportunities to not get killed that day. He made a series of very stupid decisions that cost him his life. Attempting to, or even appearing to, draw a weapon on LEO officers was the final mistake in a series of bad moves.


Hard to stand still when you've been shot.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> You probably feel the same way about Michael Brown?


 Of course I do. He made some very poor decisions also that led to his being shot.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Hard to stand still when you've been shot.


 He had plenty of opportunity to 'stand still'. He chose not to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shrek said:


> *For the prime time news ratings* surge for the day of course. They didn't have enough to ride Trump , Clinton, Cruz or Sanders or cute or heart wrenching puppy rescue stories for as much rating fodder for the television newscasts that it could provide for a day or two..


I'm talking about the Kent State footage I saw.
I wasn't really watching TV but had it on and thought there was some reason they were discussing it that made that particular day significant


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> That could be said of most people who inspired the *riots and lootings.*
> But then this guys doesn't have Sharpton and Obama egging people on


Totally different scenarios, and the constant Obama references make me tend to just skip over many of your posts, since they mostly all say the same tired lines.

Get some new material


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Right because we kill anybody who might scare us a little. No real reason needed.


Comments like that are why I don't take much of anything you say seriously.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Comments like that are why I don't take much of anything you say seriously.



Seems fair since nobody takes you seriously.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

7thswan said:


> From what I've read , there are photos,he wears his weapon on his right hip.
> Sorry, I can only bring over bits into this discussion, I'm unable at this time to post properly.So just adding things to think about and check out if one can.


There are lots of pictures of him wearing a single action revolver in a low riding hip holster on his right side.

That type of rig really doesn't work well when driving or even just seated a vehicle.

What *does* work well in a vehicle is a cross-draw arrangement that would put the gun on the left side (for a right handed person)

Lots of coats have inside pockets and he did in fact have a 9 mm in the pocket he was reaching for. There were also 3 more weapons in the vehicle

Enhanced videos are showing he reached for that pocket at least 2 times


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

greg273 said:


> He had plenty of opportunity to 'stand still'. He chose not to.



And they had far more opportunities not to shoot him but chose to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Sort of a danged if you do, danged if you don't move by the LEO. If course, it's one he wouldn't have had to have made at all had the suspects stopped at roadblock rather than trying to run it.


Yeah, I think he saw Finicum accelerate and thought he was going to crash the barricade, so he took off at about the same time Finicum turned the steering wheel to the left. 

It all seemed to happen too fast to be more than reflex actions


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Another thing I'd like to know,is it normal procidure to have a "sniper" in the brush at a roadblock?


I haven't seen any "sniper"
It's not that clear what the one in the treeline was holding but it didn't look much like a rifle to me because the proportions are wrong, and an intelligent "sniper" wouldn't move in close with a scoped rifle and put himself in more danger


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Seems fair since *nobody* takes you seriously.


That's fine with me.
I'm not looking for anyone's approval.
I don't think you can speak for everyone though


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

On the onset you see a vehicle apparently accelerating towards a road block. That vehicle does not appear to be slowing or stopping. I am surprised that he didn't get lit up at that point. I also cannot believe that anyone is going to state that this or that actually happened from looking at the video. While it does provide information to attempt to deduce what happened, it is not something where a common person should say:"OK, that's all the information that I need to be absolutely certain of what happened."

So, in this case, it further appears that the officers ended up with a situation where only one person was impacted rather than multiple people meeting with a much more damaging end...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Totally different scenarios, and the constant Obama references make me tend to just skip over many of your posts, since they mostly all say the same tired lines.
> 
> Get some new material


How was it different?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Inciting to riot doesn't justify the use of deadly force.
What Finium did does

Here he is, appearing to be pointing in the direction of the "sniper" to his right, by the trees. He seems to have something in his left hand:









And here is the "sniper" who has *no rifle* at all, and Finicum has both hands near his waist:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> And they had far more opportunities not to shoot him but chose to.


 Once that hand reaches into a coat pocket, its not gonna turn out good. What were the officers on the scene supposed to do? Wait until he had his pistol out? Wait until a few cops were shot? 
They 'chose' to shoot him because he posed a clear and present danger. Sorry, but thats how it works. You can rant about government all you want, but the cops have the legal authority to make those decisions.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Seems fair since nobody takes you seriously.


I'm not sure you actually have your finger on the pulse of HT. I doubt you have any clue who is taken seriously or not.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

1948CaseVAI said:


> NO thug lives matter - none. I don't care if thugs are black, white, or green, their lives simply do not matter and we would all be better off if we had a way to identify for sure who they are, gather them up, and cleanse the planet of them.
> 
> The man killed in this incident was in no way a thug - he was a patriotic American fighting against the enemies of this country (the US government as led by the Kenyan sewer rat).


Who decides who's a thug and who isn't, and who lets the cops know who they are? Maybe the cops mistook this guy for a thug.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Who decides who's a thug and who isn't, and who lets the cops know who they are? Maybe the cops mistook this guy for a thug.


I think they took him for a man of his word who was armed and had said publicly he would not be taken alive.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Comments like that are why I don't take much of anything you say seriously.


Comments like that are why we do. Lets face it, if he was Black you would be screaming to high heaven.

White lives don't matter.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

For the people who think the police intended to kill him before he even got out of the vehicle, how do you explain the rest of the group they arrested without incident? Why did they only want to kill that one guy?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> No, he had plenty of opportunities to not get killed that day. He made a series of very stupid decisions that cost him his life. Attempting to, or even appearing to, draw a weapon on LEO officers was the final mistake in a series of bad moves.



Yeah, right.
It was an execution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Comments like that are why we do. Lets face it, if he was Black you would be screaming to high heaven.
> 
> White lives don't matter.


I think you're confused



> Yeah, right.
> It was an execution.


And now I'm sure


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've seen it postulated that the LEO thought Finicum was going to ram the truck he was standing behind and was attempting to move out of the way of the collision


Yes, and that's a reasonable assumption. After I posted and thought about what I observed, he may have been startled enough to jump and run, thinking he was going to be hit head on, in the road.
It looked to me like he appeared from the side of the vehicle, not the rear, possibly in a defensive position behind the open door.



mmoetc said:


> Sort of a danged if you do, danged if you don't move by the LEO. If course, it's one he wouldn't have had to have made at all had the suspects stopped at roadblock rather than trying to run it.


Yep.



7thswan said:


> From what I've read , there are photos,he wears his weapon on his right hip.
> Sorry, I can only bring over bits into this discussion, I'm unable at this time to post properly.So just adding things to think about and check out if one can.


True, it would not be normal for a righty to carry on the left, unless.............



Bearfootfarm said:


> That type of rig really doesn't work well when driving or even just seated a vehicle.
> 
> What *does* work well in a vehicle is a cross-draw arrangement that would put the gun on the left side (for a right handed person)
> 
> ...



..............he was driving. Then it might be advantageous to use the left hand.
It's much easier to fire from the left hand from the window and keep the right hand on the wheel. It also is easier to keep concealed as someone approaches the driver side window.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think they took him for a man of his word who was armed and had said publicly he would not be taken alive.


And that's a good thing - to be taken at your word.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's much easier to fire from the left hand from the window and keep the right hand on the wheel. It also is easier to keep concealed as someone approaches the driver side window.


It's seldom easier to fire with the "weak hand" but it's no problem to drive left handed and fire normally.

In fact the only way it's "easier" to use the left hand from a vehicle is to hang your entire arm outside, which will limit one to about a 90 degree field of fire. Using the right hand you can get nearly 180 degrees without having much more than the gun barrel out the window.

If you believe any of that is incorrect, sit in your car and go through the motions and you will quickly see what I mean

He wasn't worried about concealment, or he wouldn't have exited the vehicle, so none of that really applies to the scenario


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's seldom easier to fire with the "weak hand" but it's no problem to drive left handed and fire normally.
> 
> In fact the only way it's "easier" to use the left hand from a vehicle is to hang your entire arm outside, which will limit one to about a 90 degree field of fire. Using the right hand you can get nearly 180 degrees without having much more than the gun barrel out the window.
> 
> ...


I might try it to see if it works better..........after I get my truck off the ramps, 
Sitting here in a chair, I can see no problem using the right hand crossed over the left. As long as the passenger keeps back in the seat, firing out the other window would definitely be easier right handed. Now if you weren't worried about the windshield (not a concern when someone's shooting to kill you, lol) that opens up a wide range of angles too.
Other than firing at something behind you in a vehicle, I don't see a big advantage in using the right hand though. 

But let's say you're absolutely right in most cases, and from the pictures of the man, he appears to be right handed - that makes it tougher to explain why he was found with a gun in his *left* pocket.........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But let's say you're absolutely right in most cases, and from the pictures of the man, he appears to be right handed - that makes it tougher to explain *why he was found with a gun in his left pocket........*.


That's already been addressed.
More and more I think you really don't read the posts
Try scrolling back once in a while and you'll find most things have been answered more than once
Post 81 covered the question

Many jackets have inside pockets on the left side accessible by the right hand in a cross draw motion.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> I might try it to see if it works better..........after I get my truck off the ramps,
> Sitting here in a chair, I can see no problem using the right hand crossed over the left. As long as the passenger keeps back in the seat, firing out the other window would definitely be easier right handed. Now if you weren't worried about the windshield (not a concern when someone's shooting to kill you, lol) that opens up a wide range of angles too.
> Other than firing at something behind you in a vehicle, I don't see a big advantage in using the right hand though.
> 
> But let's say you're absolutely right in most cases, and from the pictures of the man, he appears to be right handed - that makes it tougher to explain why he was found with a gun in his *left* pocket.........


I'm not convinced that he intended to shoot anybody. If he planned to follow through with his promise that he would not be taken alive, it would stand to reason that he may have had not desire to shoot anyone but simply to leave officers with the belief that he was presenting a clear threat. 

Ultimately, his actions could be considered suicide or perhaps he believed he was a martyr for a cause.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm not convinced that he intended to shoot anybody. If he planned to follow through with his promise that he would not be taken alive, it would stand to reason that he may have had not desire to shoot anyone but simply to leave officers with the belief that he was presenting a clear threat.
> 
> Ultimately, his actions could be considered suicide or perhaps *he believed he was a martyr for a cause*.


I think he got caught up in the hype and the thrills, and thought it would turn out with them all being heroes, and him selling more books and T-shirts.

He backed himself into a corner and was too stupid to just give it up


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been addressed.
> More and more I think you really don't read the posts
> Try scrolling back once in a while and you'll find most things have been answered more than once
> Post 81 covered the question
> ...



Yes you are correct. I haven't been following much of this standoff, even less after the shooting. It's disturbing and knowing it wouldn't end well doesn't help.
I remembered "pocket" but didn't remember "jacket" pocket, so it makes perfect sense that way now.
The mod wr asked folks to be civil and nice, and I really should try harder to do that.
I'm sorry if my question annoyed you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The mod wr asked folks to be civil and nice, and I really should try harder to do that.


On that we can agree


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> On that we can agree


And sometimes not saying anything contributes the most to civility.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I think we have beaten this topic to death. There are two opinions and neither will change the other. It's a "hands up don't shoot" situation that goes round and round.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> I think we have beaten this topic to death. There are two opinions and neither will change the other. It's a "hands up don't shoot" situation that goes round and round.


 If he had kept his 'hands up', there probably wouldn't have been a shooting.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> If he had kept his 'hands up', there probably wouldn't have been a shooting.


And I say that his hands would have stayed up if he wasn't shot first.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> And I say that his hands would have stayed up if he wasn't shot first.


 That is not clear from the video, looks to me like he reaches inside his coat, THEN reacts as if shot. You claim to have seen a 'recoil' from the agent at the lower part of the screen, can you pinpoint the time of this? I watched this thing several times and did not see what you describe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And sometimes not saying anything contributes the most to civility.


The Devil made me do it. 

Not saying anything is next


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> That is not clear from the video, looks to me like he reaches inside his coat, THEN reacts as if shot. You claim to have seen a 'recoil' from the agent at the lower part of the screen, can you pinpoint the time of this? I watched this thing several times and did not see what you describe.


Yes, it is exactly a split second before he drops his arms and rotates to the left.

You know, like when a bullet hits you on the left side.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Yes, it is exactly a split second before he drops his arms and rotates to the left.
> 
> You know, like when a bullet hits you on the left side.


Lots of folks have varying opinions as to the sequence of events.

Most seem to think he reached before any shots were fired, after seeing the better enhanced versions.

No matter what, it was due to his actions alone


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I think there were a few alphabet departments that had a minor hand in his death, not his actions *alone*. 

Why is it, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nail?

We've got drones in the sky tracking their vehicles, probably the latest in video and audio surveillance, the best high tech gadgets that taxpayer money can buy.
And how do they decide to end this?

"Let's park our trucks across the road, stand there in harm's way, and see how much flesh and blood we can put at risk"

Hey geniuses, there are even low tech devices, like stop sticks. Hide over a hill, cover it with a little snow and just watch and wait. Trucks won't go fast or very far with 4 flats.
Now the apprehension of armed people may not go as easily as planned, but amping everyone's adrenaline up to the danger level - how often that THAT end well?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://gawker.com/fbi-releases-aerial-video-of-oregon-militant-lavoy-fini-1755849657



> On Thursday, the FBI released aerial footage of LaVoy Finicum&#8217;s shooting death on Tuesday. An airplane was following the joint FBI-Oregon State Police operation, during which Ammon Bundy and others were peacefully taken into custody.
> 
> The relevant portion of the video above, which has been truncated, begins at around 5:45.
> 
> ...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> Yes, it is exactly a split second before he drops his arms and rotates to the left.
> .


 No, I don't think so. At 0:18 and 0:20 seconds, he is reaching for something in his coat. He doesn't get shot until a few seconds later. 
Since you were the one who brought up the race card many posts ago, I have to wonder if you'd be defending this guy so vehemently if it was an armed black man who ran a roadblock and vowed to not go to jail. 
Personally, black, white, it doesn't matter, when you appear to be an imminent threat to law enforcement, they're going to take action.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

greg273 said:


> No, I don't think so. At 0:18 and 0:20 seconds, he is reaching for something in his coat. He doesn't get shot until a few seconds later.


I'm not buying the murder theories specifically because I can't tell from the video if he was first shot before he lowered his arms, but I also don't see how you can tell from the video that he didn't get shot until after he reached. It's quite possible there's something I've missed, but I have watched it several times in slow motion.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> But let's say you're absolutely right in most cases, and from the pictures of the man, he appears to be right handed - that makes it tougher to explain why he was found with a gun in his *left* pocket.........


Wasn't the gun in his inside left jacket pocket? Perfect place for a right-handed person.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Wasn't the gun in his inside left jacket pocket? Perfect place for a right-handed person.


Even if he hadn't been armed, merely reaching for that area constitutes an imminent threat, given his prior actions and statements


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of folks have varying opinions as to the sequence of events.
> 
> Most seem to think he reached before any shots were fired, after seeing the better enhanced versions.
> 
> No matter what, it was due to his actions alone


I do agree there. It was due to his actions.

But those actions happened a long time before he was shot.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I read an interview with the woman that was in the truck with him and I'll try and find something with less profane comments. 

She and another dropped to the floor of the truck so her vision was limited but she does speak of him exiting the truck and shouting repeatedly at officers to shoot him.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

There is video at link and a woman that discribes what she is seeing.
http://thewashingtonstandard.com/en...-point-out-agent-that-took-first-shot-at-him/


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

http://htl.li/XK9w5
Says he was tazed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

7thswan said:


> There is video at link and a woman that discribes what she is seeing.
> http://thewashingtonstandard.com/en...-point-out-agent-that-took-first-shot-at-him/





7thswan said:


> http://htl.li/XK9w5
> Says he was tazed.


You do realize that both of these links are opinion pieces, right? There is nothing to substantiate either one. 

The first link is using "Call of Duty Goddess" as a source. Unbelievable.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that both of these links are opinion pieces, right? There is nothing to substantiate either one.
> 
> The first link is using "Call of Duty Goddess" as a source. Unbelievable.


Both opinions posted seem to be contradicted by eyewitness accounts, most recently from the woman in the truck with Finicum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> I do agree there. It was due to his actions.
> 
> But those actions happened a long time before he was shot.


All his actions contributed, and didn't end until he was shot.
Had he merely complied at the first roadblock, he would be alive and well, just like all the others


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by 7thswan View Post
> There is video at link and a woman that discribes what she is seeing.
> http://thewashingtonstandard.com/enh...t-shot-at-him/


It shows him pointing in that direction with one hand, and it shows his other hand lowered and nearer his waist. Those pictures were posted here earlier,

The woman in the car claimed she saw him being shot, but also claimed she was cowering face down in the floor of the truck.

Ammon Bundy's wife claimed he told her Finicum was on his knees when shot.

It's obvious you cannot believe what they said. 
They lie


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It shows him pointing in that direction with one hand, and it shows his other hand lowered and nearer his waist. Those pictures were posted here earlier,
> 
> The woman in the car claimed she saw him being shot, but also claimed she was cowering face down in the floor of the truck.
> 
> ...


So do the police! They lie like a rug.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Here is a better vid. More clarity.[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sJo-7aCYu4[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> So do the police! They lie like a rug.


Yes, they are human also


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It shows him pointing in that direction with one hand, and it shows his other hand lowered and nearer his waist. Those pictures were posted here earlier,
> 
> The woman in the car claimed she saw him being shot, but also claimed she was cowering face down in the floor of the truck.
> 
> ...


The woman in the truck did indicate that Finicum was hollering to officers to 'go ahead and shoot me', which I found interesting because if I didn't want to be shot, I think I'd be more inclined to holler something along the lines of, 'don't shoot, I surrender.'

'Go ahead and shot me' could be interpreted as a challenge or dare but not something a man with his hands up ready to turn himself in would say.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> The woman in the truck did indicate that Finicum was hollering to officers to 'go ahead and shoot me', which I found interesting because if I didn't want to be shot, I think I'd be more inclined to holler something along the lines of, 'don't shoot, I surrender.'
> 
> 'Go ahead and shoot me' could be interpreted as a challenge or dare but not something a man with his hands up ready to turn himself in would say.


I think he may have believed they wouldn't do it, but his theatrics would make him the defiant "patriot" hero

Some let theatrics and melodrama override common sense because they see themselves in a false light


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It didn't need to happen from everything I've seen and read. I've seen video of local cops handling situations much better than these guys. Here's a retired cop's view.

Police broke protocol, set-up situation to murder Finicum



Lots of things wrong with this shooting and it stinks on many levels, however, like most video it is still hard to know ALL the facts, and we probably never will, however on face value I see lots of issues.

Written under the video....

Things we know:
The suspects were NOT violent & had not hurt anyone
Gov Knew who the suspects were so escape was not a concern
Cops had much greater force, numbers & daylight
Cops picked the place, when and how this went down
Cops used deadly force option by blocking the road before stop
Cops show no regard for their fear when than ran down a man with his hands up
Cops were so anxious to shoot they shot at each other, crossfire
Suspect was UNARMED
Suspect did NO point anything at officers
Suspect had his Hands up and spinning as if to show unarmed
Why no spike strips used
Why chase them when they had several opportunities to arrest
What was the Emergency or exigency to get them NOW
Suspects were in 3 to 4 feet of snow, no threat of escape

Cops created more exigency than needed in my opinion.

Here is link to Federal Arrest Warrant Affidavit:
http://www.thinklikeahorse.org/All_Ab...

Glad you got some things but you must have missed the part where I talk about it always comes back to reasonable and TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. This was not a traffic in the middle of the night in a dark alley in a high crime area, where the officers have no idea of who they are stopping or what their intentions are or where one officer is stopping a car with four people in it. To the contrary, it was multiple officers, heavily armed, who could have picked any time or any where to arrest these guys, it was daylight, the Gov had way superior force, they blocked the road endangering their life and the life of others, the suspects were known, identified and had been contacted by the feds several times before this chosen encounter, there were no other people around, they had air support, radio contact, heavy snow with no where to run, if a suspect got away he could not get far, they could follow with a drone, they knew his identity, the suspects DID NOT DO ANY VIOLENT CRIME OR ACTS, other than trespassing and failing to stop when pulled over, the cops used poor tactics which set the car up to either ram them so they could then shoot them and when the suspect tried to avoid the cops and not run them over, some dumass jumped in front of the car so he could say they tried to run me over, an unarmed suspect, NO GUN WAS SEEN OR POINTED AT ANYONE, got out of the car and ran and the cops had adequate cover from their vehicles and bullet proof vest they were in NO IMMEDIATE DANGER, until they ran out from cover to shoot an unarmed guy who they knew who he was and he had no where to go. "TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES - WHO CREATED THE EXIGENCY, WERE THEY COPS IN FEAR HIDING BEHIND THEIR CARS, IF SO WHY DID THEY LEAVE THEIR CARS, SUSPECT COULD NOT ESCAPE, THEY HAD AIR SUPPORT, THEY HAD DAYLIGHT, THEY PICKED THE AREA THAT WAS SAFE, THERE WAS NO ENDANGERMENT OF BYSTANDERS... If you are going to pick and choose which facts fix your agenda then this is not being objective.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Here's a retired cop's view.


There are several errors I spotted within just a few seconds, so I'd say this "retired cop" is pretty biased as well as dishonest



> Suspect was UNARMED
> Suspect did NO point anything at officers


He was armed, and it makes no difference if he "pointed" anything or not.



> Cops used deadly force option by blocking the road before stop


If he hadn't *run* the first AND second one he'd be alive now.
He's the one who made it "deadly". 



> Cops were so anxious to shoot they shot at each other, crossfire


If you weren't there you don't really know that's true
Overhead angles can be deceiving and don't always tell the whole story, since no one else was injured other than Ryan Bundy, who also resisted

If they were "anxious to shoot" they would have lit up the truck as it approached at high speed

Had he not jumped out of the truck it could all have been avoided.



> If you are going to pick and choose which facts fix your agenda then *this is not being objective*.


That's the one thing in all that I agreed with 100%


----------



## susanneb (Feb 17, 2005)

While I am in no way a supporter of this group's cause or method, I find the video troubling, and therefore I believe there is truth on both sides of the argument posed on these pages.

Finicum had a death wish in running the barricades and by moving as he did.

On the other hand, while the OSP were justified according to their training to fire when they did, the shooting did seem to be a knee-jerk reaction.

Anyone using common sense would realize they should move slowly and deliberately when police guns are trained upon them -- as in drop to the ground immediately. But was he using common sense or was he caught up in the drama?

I realize that the shooters could not sit around to decipher his intent, but we hear so often of police shooting the mentally ill and others who pose no threat -- it goes back to the person with a hammer seeing everything as a nail. 

Finicum was a fool every step of the way, but if it was indeed suicide by cop, they seemed a bit too willing to indulge him.

I don't pretend to know the answer, and this video raises more questions than it answers. I do not see this as murder in any way, especially considering the lengths the FBI went in order to avoid confrontation, but how they handled the situation should be reviewed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Frame by frame enhancement shows Finicum reaching inside his coat:



> LaVoy Finicum Was Not Murdered. He Forced Oregon Police To Shoot Him.
> 
> *Finicum pulls his jacket open with his left hand and reaches inside with his right hand *as he continues turning towards the officer emerging from the treeline.
> 
> ...


http://bearingarms.com/lavoy-finicum-murdered-forced-oregon-police-shoot/


----------

