Agreed.
I watched the enhanced video and listened to the woman’s narrative.
She talks about the one guy who took a shot and then walked away...and then says Lavoy felt the impact.
Well, the impact would have been immediate. The guy would have had no time to turn and take a step after shooting before Lavoy felt it. Sheez...these people apparently do not understand basic ballistics, muzzle velocity and hw fast a bullet travels 20-30 feet.
Second, Lavoy’s reaction to being shot would have been much more pronounced than so many of these people are saying.
We see him actually get shot towards the end, right before he falls down and you can see him react, it stops him, and he falls over immediately.
My guess is that during the second or two after that shot and as he hits the ground, all of the shots taken at Lavoy were fired.
A person can pull the trigger on a semi three or four times in that space of time, particularly a well trained individual...let alone two or more who undoubtedly shot once the firing started.
So...I am standing by what I have said in my own analysis here:
http://www.jeffhead.com/lavoy.htm
These officers were amped up. They were told the subjects would be armed and dangerous. Regardless of what e think and know of Lavoy, one of the LEOs had almost been hit as Lavoy tried to go around the road block. Thay giys was follwoin SOP and trying to make sure the suspect went completely off the pavement and into the snow before getting around. He succeeded, but Lavoy came very near to hitting him.
All of the LEO’s there would have viewed that right there as intent and deadly threat.
Lavoy got out and ran around, apparently shouting his demand to see the sheriff. It was simply too late for that type of discussion in those circumstances.
Lavoy does reach to his side...I cannot say why...but when you are known to be armed and when LEOs are pointing guns at you and hollering for you to get down...that is fatal.
I feel bad for him. He was a good man. I feel bad for his family. I know American lost a patriot. But he just did not realize the deadly danger he jumped out into when he left that truck, and he acted completely wrong.
He should never have driven away from the 1st stop.
He should never have tried to go around the road block.
he should never have jumped out of that truck.
And he should never have kept running around when officers were telling him to get down.
Anyhow...I now have people (most of them relative newbies) here on FR calling me a government shill, sympathizer and apologist now if you can believe that. Why?
Because I am being objective and analytical...which is running counter to their preconceived notions.
Anyhow, thanks for your post. God’s speed.
You stay safe down there and God’s best o you and ours.
Jeff
What does "basic ballistics" have to do with getting Tased?
+1
You are not alone. See post 54.
I have been puzzled by many of the posts here on FR about this and frankly, the posts about the death of Lavoy have almost everything in common with many of the beliefs within the Black Lives Matter community.
Few, if any, of the posters who seem to support this action have articulated why they believe these men were correct in their actions. I have tried to objectively and rationally study the “demands” of this group and I am still confused because they said so many different things. You can’t end an argument or discussion with “gov’t bad - self proclaimed patriots good”, but that is what many seem to hang their hat on.
In fact, if you go back to the original coverage of this “armed takeover” they invoked the sovereign citizen belief in the authority of the Sheriff and said they would leave if the Sheriff asked them to. The Sheriff immediately asked them to and they never talked about that again. Then they started a dialogue with a Sheriff in another county (who also wanted them to leave) whom they believed was more sympathetic to their views. That is just one example of their failure to abide by their own statements.
I have to ask, when a tyrannical government no longer has any legitimate moral authority and is busy with imposing tyranny and arresting and executing citizens it declares terrorists - at what point should we realize that it is better to die fighting than begging on our knees for mercy from a despotic beast?
Why do we refuse to recognize tyranny at the hand of the Beast in Washington?
If this was 1774, would we be writing that the Colonists at Lexington Green acted completely wrong? That they should have never been on the Common and never assembled in formation against the British Regulars after that first command from Pitcairn to disarm and disperse? That they should have NEVER fired that first shot at a superior British force and NEVER should have resisted when the British regulars charged with bayonets and skewered John Parkers men?
I'm just curious as we denounce those who actually stood in defiance of tyranny as being stupid. Had the Colonists lost Concord, I am sure the historical analysis would be about the same as it is being levied against Bundy and Finicum right now.
The fact they stood at all should be of primary importance to consider, rather than the tactical error they may have made leaving the refuge in the first place.At some point we have to resist, because the longer it takes for us to do so, the less chance we have to preserve what liberty we have left, and eventually our own lives.
Evading ambushes are not grounds for surrender.
The fact is, much of the Revolutionary War was a series of ambushes set up by the Redcoats, and of Washington's miraculous escapes from one set of ambushes after another.
At some point, we have to begin wrapping our minds around the fact that the State is imposing despotism upon us. We are being ambushed every day by the cabal in DC. Look what was done to the Hammonds. Do we surrender to it, or resist it?
Because that is where we have arrived, whether we would admit it or not. Resistance or acceptance.
Do any of us want war? No. No sane man wants war.
But what is worse, is good men doing nothing in the face of evil and tyranny. At least those folks in Oregon made an effort, and the policies of tyranny being imposed by the Fedzilla in Washington has a few more folks aware of what is being done with impunity to the folks who raise your steaks and hamburgers.
Let's not kill the reason there was an armed protest in Oregon to begin with, by declaring what they did as stupid and foolish. Because if we do, any just cause to resist what is being systematically done to us will perish before it is ever born. And that is EXACTLY what Mordor on the Potomac wants to make sure of.
Resisting despotism and tyranny is our duty, even if the State and the majority say it's stupid.
Thanks, Jeff. Yours is the most logical explanation I have heard.
Jeff,
I agree with your assessment and must
say that Lavoy stepped into a place that most individuals
have no Idea of the consequences .
Lavoy was dancing in a mine field.
LEO’S have a tight script in a situation like this.
You are the voice of Reason ,
Thanks.
Based on the video, the officer to the left was not a shooter, but was using a taser. I say this for four reasons:
(1) He has the weapon in his left hand in a single handed grip, and I see no evidence of recoil in that left hand;
(2) He reaches with his right hand for his right hip while using the weapon in his left hand. This movement only makes sense if he is reaching for a pistol for the event that his less lethal weapon is ineffective;
(3) He would not have a safe shot. Police are not known as the best shots, and his line of fire would have exposed the entire roadblock to his fire; and
(4) It appears as if you can see this officer stripping (like in fly-fishing) wire from the taser as he walks around Lavoy.
I don't think anyone at the roadblock shot Finnicum. Going back to point (3) above, none of the police at the roadblock would have had a safe line of fire because of the position of the officer in the upper left.
The only shooter was likely the officer in the lower center as he was the only officer with a safe line of fire.
With this said, it seems that the officer in the center shot much earlier than the officer with the taser, and it seems likely that Lavoy was reacting to the impact of bullets when he went for his side.
Overall, this isn't open and shut and the video doesn't resolve doubt as to whether Lavoy was murdered or justifiably killed by the officers at the roadblock.
The other issue that needs to be raised is that the entire action was based on a trumped-up charge. In this case, the violated law was a 150 year old law that is broken by every protest. (i.e. it is hard to think of a scenario when a protest doesn't impede at least one postal worker; alternatively, there is no way that at least one SEC employee wasn't impeded or intimidated by OWS). The spotty and inconsistent enforcement of this law potentially raises due process concerns and shows that this arrest was merely a political arrest, likely because the MWR protesters did not align with the current regime's goals and beliefs.
The political nature of the arrest and the ridiculous nature of the charge supporting the arrest makes this, regardless of whether the police were justified in pulling the trigger, murder by the regime. (we haven't even touched on whether Lavoy would have been justified if he had shot the police based on two eyewitness statements that the FBI shot at the truck at the initial stop, and based on the fact that Ryan Bundy was, somehow, shot in the arm).
Jeff,
just can’t but question the purpose of Oath keepers and PPN ?
I would feel responsible for Lavoys death if I had the task of preventing violence at this event.
The whole mess is disturbing,
But the ranchers should have been Drilled on the dynamics of
Law Enforcement under these circumstances.
Oath keepers and PPN Where Were You?
Your views ?