Posted on 03/10/2016 9:03:38 PM PST by EternalVigilance
PDF of the complete autopsy here:
Hands up.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Hands down.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Hands up.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Hands down.
Go ahead and shoot me.
Bang. Bang. Bang.
He got his wish. Suicide by cop.
It's also clear that he was ignoring their repeated commands to get down on the ground and instead kept shouting at the police to shoot him.
And it's pretty damn clear he came within a few feet of running over an officer.
He died like a MAN! He was fighting for a just cause, he was brave. He knew the government would come down on him. And he could have stayed home. He made a choice to fight. God bless him! It does not matter what some angry guy sitting at a computer thinks. He died a good man and a patriot.
They fired upon and struck the window of the truck as Leroy was exiting it with his hands up as heard and seen on the video.
The FBI sniper fired at least one round into the driver's side passenger seat window, shattering it.
Apparently, this information needs to be minimized for some reason, but someone did a slow-motion video of the footage from the cellphone in the truck.
You can clearly see the glass shattering.
azkathy wrote:
This slow motion video clearly shows hands up as the window shatters.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/mystery_shots_fired_at_lavoy_f.html
If you notice, the fist video put out nearly a month ago was much more muted. Also, you can be certain the drone video had FLIR. IMO they put the slightly edited video out there not wanting us to see the barrel flashes. You would then see whether our not Finicum was reacting to a shot.
If you’re going to impugn the man, at least get his name right sport.
ARNOLD LAW’S COMMENTS ON FBI COVER-UP
The public deserved to have the video, with audio and sound, released immediately after the shooting. Now we know why it wasn’t released: the public would have heard the shots that the government didn’t want it to hear. The government should not be afraid of the public asking questions. They should encourage it. Discourse, dialogue, and criticism of the government are the bedrock of democracy.
The post-shooting FBI press conference was all to prejudice the jury, which is exactly why attorneys need to be able to speak on behalf of their clients. The answer is more speech not less. There is no prejudice of a jury when facts are released that would be heard by the jury anyway. The FBI was picking and choosing those facts. That is wrong.
Now we know why the Government is seeking a protective order trying to gag Ammon Bundy from talking about discovery.
In State v. Oliphant, this Oregon case discusses a person’s right to use physical force against a police officer in self-defense during an arrest. In Oregon, a person’s right to use force in self-defense depends on a person’s own reasonable belief in the necessity for such action, not whether the force used or about to be used on him actually was unlawful. The key here is the defendant’s reasonable belief. If a reasonable person in Finicum’s position would have believed that the use or imminent use of force against him exceeded the force reasonably necessary to affect the arrest, then he was entitled to defend himself from that use of force, i.e., by grabbing for a weapon.
The mere voicing of frustration with the government coupled with an assertion of the lawful authority to defend oneself against attack, is not a threat. But shooting at a stopped vehicle is. Finnicum wouldn’t have known that it was a less-than-lethal round. They just perceived gunshots and fled.
If the Federal Government knew that this alleged cover-up was happening, why did the FBI continue to lead the investigation? Why didn’t they bring in Deschutes County to investigate the protest site? Grant County? ATF? Anyone but the FBI who was under criminal investigation themselves.
The taxpeasants of Oregon are going to lose a LOT of money in the civil lawsuit:
Three Supreme Court cases are used in the discussion of roadblocks:
> Brower v. County of Inyo
> City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris
> Tennessee v. Garner
A quote from a discussion paper from the DOJ:
Fixed roadblocks, which block road to extent that little or no outlet remains.
"Fixed roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable."
They set up around a blind curve. It's not going to go well for them in court. :)
Plus, a freeper (Ray76) has done a speed analysis from the initial video, and Finicum was driving just a fuzz faster than normal highway speeds. He braked immediately when he saw the roadblock, but went into the snow to avoid hitting the unmarked, un-police-flashing-lights vehicles.
Here’s a video that shows the ties of the Oregonian to Uranium 1. No wonder they showed such bias to the Patriots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd4e40wRno
MY thoughts, too.
Murder 1...............book ‘em Dano.
Oh it was Dano who shot him?...then I guess we call the militia.
And that makes you Judge, Jury and Executioner.
I’m sure that will please your Fed Masters.
Correct. It's called self-defense.
Doesn’t matter. They’ll claim the guy who synced up the videos is a secret undercover lying Federal agent sent by Barrack Obama.
Especially if you're “going around”. If you're barreling straight “through”, it would be self defense.
I can foresee the day where I will have to outright shoot first and ask questions later when I run across a person with your mentality.
See how that works?
Especially if you're "going around". If you're barreling straight "through", it would be self defense.
I can foresee the day where I will have to outright shoot first and ask questions later when I run across a person with your mentality.
See how that works?
Yes I see how it works. You don't read the post you're responding to, which was...
If I was in the truck with the crazy dumbass who took off after the first stop and then proceeded to run the roadblock, I would have shot him myself.
Your response is not material to the viewpoint I expressed.
BS. You know very well they attempted to go around, not attempting to go through and not attempting to run over anyone. Parse it however you wish, my statement is made with the understanding that you know the entire story when you posted what you did. Your “Self Defense” statement tells me you’re not being entirely honest with your reply to me, but in the end, I don’t really care.
Aside from that, you are more than happy to get in a truck with someone who you are already familiar with and don’t see what is coming, particularly considering the overall situation, your viewpoint is one that makes my response at the end of my post just as valid.
Wow, no doubt about the shot shattering the glass.
From what I understand, there were at least four rounds fired from the time he came around the sharp bend in the road and when he left the roadway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.