If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
I lost my Oregon list when my computer crashed last year, so please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Posted on 01/31/2016 12:11:36 PM PST by LeoWindhorse
In this explosive interview, Shawna Cox - a passenger in LaVoy Finicum's vehicle and an eye witness to his murder - sets the record straight on what REALLY happened. Plus: the bombshell revelation that Ammon Bundy's driver, Mark McConnell, betrayed Bundy and Finicum into the hands of federal agents.
“charged the cops” He can barely stand in the snow and he 54 years old. Where is the charge?
If you ever get an autopsy report which is doubtful then you will know how many times the poor guy was shot. I’ll bet it was an outrageous amount of times.
He had every reason to believe they were about to be Wacoed.
What has law enforcement said?
“He charged us.”
“He was reaching for his waistband.”
“He had a gun in his pocket.”
They keep changing their story. That makes this look like a coverup.
What did the Sheriff say at the press conference?
Did he say, “He drew a weapon and came at us blazing away!”?
Nope.
Look at what he said.
The fact is that this operation was a failure.
The standard is that 100% of the suspects are taken alive.
There is a dead American citizen.
The standard was not met.
That is failure.
Lavoy was not my employee.
Law Enforcement personnel are my employees. I pay their wages.
Do I demand perfection from my employees?
When life and death are involved, yes I do.
This guy left behind a wife and a bunch of kids.
You can be law enforcement or have law enforcement as close relations, but that doesn’t change the fact, the fact, that this operation was a failure.
Law enforcement needs to quit hiding and admit they failed.
Should law enforcement be punished for failing?
Yes, lest it become common practice.
If I was conducting an AAR on this operation, I would start out with,
“Guys, we are all going home tonight. No law enforcement personnel were killed or wounded or hurt and that is great. Things happened fast, and it could have been really bad.”
Then, I would hit them like a blast furnace for failing the mission.
That way, they would know that I cared about them, but that I wouldn’t tolerate failure in life and death situations.
Covering up for incompetence isn’t loyalty, it’s accessory to incompetence.
Will you run for president as an Independent, please?
Thanks for the info!!
Ping!!
Very compelling. Why DID the cops lie about him charging the cops with guns blazing?
btt
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
I lost my Oregon list when my computer crashed last year, so please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Especially considering that they had been told they had 'safe passage' to the meeting with the Sheriff.
Then, they are getting pulled over and fired upon?
Yep! Assassination pure and simple.
(Excerpted)
Seems there is some examination of conscience to be done, even if not criminal culpability. Above all, the over militarization and hair-trigger training of LE HAS to be addressed.
LeVoy did not need to die; those in his vehicle did not need to be pummeled with rounds. LE training is in great need of reform, if this situation is an example of "legitimate" response to "legitimate" training. As others have posited, these rules of engagement in Oregon on our soil, exceed what are allowed by our fighters on foreign soil.
I have to agree with that assessment. We we taught and trained on the Geneva Convention, on how to save cultural treasures, to avoid collateral damage to civilians, even at the expense of our own and our troops' lives, heaven help us to exercise judgment to protect our own troops within the rules of engagement, but that is what we had to do, - we had to do both.
Who is prepared to let go this pummeling of a civilian vehicle on a civilian highway in these Unites States, go excused? ... In a foreign theater, it could well be deigned a War Crime! Yet, none even here, much less in society at large, are protesting the pummeling of a civilian vehicle in a filmed assault, with not only presumed guilty but also known innocent hence collateral innocents involved?
You freepers decry the hands of our warriors tied in foreign wars into which they are sent for better or for worse, yet you would ALLOW this travesty to be understood as a legitimate exercise of domestic police power?? PLEASE EXPLAIN as inquiring minds are wondering.
487 posted on ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2016‎ ‎12‎:‎47‎:‎57‎ ‎PM by AMDG&BVMH
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390085/posts?page=487#487
I am protesting what happened.....
Running???? He got about 10 feet from the van hoping they would not kill the women. He can barely climb the snowbank. After being shot in the left back, he should have kept his hands up????????? Really?
I’ll wait for the autopsy to say where he was shot.
If you ever get pulled over and are ordered by LEA to comply, I urge you not to react like LaVoy did...it will get you shot as well.
Right now, NONE of us know exactly what happened out on that road other than the fact that Finnican was shot to death by law enforcement. His death MAY have been justified. It also MAY not have been. Everyone is an instant expert without an autopsy report by a medical examiner or coroner, without the audio on that tape taken on the ground by one of the agents in on the kill. No audio was taken? REALLY???? Was he tasered as some seem to claim seeing on the drone tape? If so, before or after he was shot? How many shots and what direction for each? Competent forensic evdence is our friend IF we are seeking the truth (whatever it may be) rather than a favored pre-ordained result. And there will be a legion of other legitimate questions to be answered as to this disturbing incident as to which there have been soooooo many conflicting stories.
LaVoy Finnecan is dead and that won't change just because we are all in a hurry to draw conclusions. Our conclusions, his prematurely terminated life.
My ears and my eyes are too old to trust as arbiters of what is on the videotapes or on the audio that triggered this thread (apparently). I shall therefore depend on the eyes and ears of reliable sober and objective folks younger than I. Those folks may still disagree and maybe this will have to go to a civil trial claiming that the government and its agents inflicted a wrongful death on LaVoy Finnican. OR, challenged to cough up all the evidence, tapes, memos, written orders, resumes of officers involved and anything else relevant to the case, after interrogatories have been served and answered, and documents and other physical evidence produced, the government may make a multimillion dollar settlement as it did in the Ruby Ridge case OR the Finnican family may withdraw its civil action when possessed of all relevant evidence. Right now, we simply do not know.
I might add that the law enforcement officers, if charged with crimes, have the same right to due process of law as any other citizen, including the right to a jury trial and the right to be found guilty, if at all, only by a unanimous verdict by jurors convinced of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Right now, they and those involved at this nature center, are "not guilty in the contemplation of our law." They, all of them, will remain so unless and until so convicted by a jury, according to the standards of our laws.
The justifications you cite for the killing of Finnican, as I understand the facts, are NOT adequate justification at law for killing him.
It is a factual determination yet to be made by a jury as to whether he "reached into his jacket." If he did and they so determine, whether as to criminal charges against the LEOs or civil matters against them, that justification would be the best in show but it STILL has to be proven and their are a LOT of conflicting interpretations as to just what happened.
"He should not have driven off." Perhaps, but, driving off is rather disproportionate to any attempt to justify executing him by the roadway.
"He should not have told the world that he would rather die than give up." This too would have to be proven but it won't be because it is irrelevant as a justification for killing him. Being a damn fool is not, in and of itself, a capital offense or an offense at all.
"He should not have participated in taking over the government building." I certainly agree that neither he nor anyone else should have taken over that building. There was nothing at all proportional to be gained by doing so. I don't at all have a grip on the underlying controversy over some of their friends being sentenced hard for arson charges although that seems a bit fishy as government behavior. Seizing some silly federal nature center wa a futile gesture from the get go and one that put its perps and LEOs at unnecessary risk for nothing that one might articulate. Again, however, being damn ools should not, in and of itself, trigger impromptu capital punishment or the risk thereof.
Was Cliven Bundy even present at either the nature center OR in the vehicle. I am under the impression he, like Vladimir Putin, Amelia Earhart and Judge Crater, was not present. Irrelevant. If you are referencing the much earlier confrontation at Cliven Bundy's ranch, that resulted in the government backing down, at least for the time being.
"He should not have been hanging out with the Bundys. Perhaps not but he had a First Amendment Freedom of Association given to him by God and which the government is bound to protect and not attack. At the time he was killed he was fleeing a vehicle on a public highway in deep snow and not hanging out with anyone. Finnican likely ought not to be dead but he is. Charlie Manson still lives. Go figure! I find Sharon Tate ad her guests and the LaBiancas to be a lot more sympathetic victims than the government and its temporary loss of control over some closed down nature center.
I have a general sympathy for LEOs but my patience with the FBI is wearing a bit thinner after Waco, Oklahoma City and Ruby Ridge.
Right now, NONE of us know exactly what happened out on that road other than the fact that Finnican was shot to death by law enforcement. His death MAY have been justified. It also MAY not have been. Everyone is an instant expert without an autopsy report by a medical examiner or coroner, without the audio on that tape taken on the ground by one of the agents in on the kill. No audio was taken? REALLY???? Was he tasered as some seem to claim seeing on the drone tape? If so, before or after he was shot? How many shots and what direction for each? Competent forensic evdence is our friend IF we are seeking the truth (whatever it may be) rather than a favored pre-ordained result. And there will be a legion of other legitimate questions to be answered as to this disturbing incident as to which there have been soooooo many conflicting stories.
LaVoy Finnecan is dead and that won't change just because we are all in a hurry to draw conclusions. Our conclusions, his prematurely terminated life.
My ears and my eyes are too old to trust as arbiters of what is on the videotapes or on the audio that triggered this thread (apparently). I shall therefore depend on the eyes and ears of reliable sober and objective folks younger than I. Those folks may still disagree and maybe this will have to go to a civil trial claiming that the government and its agents inflicted a wrongful death on LaVoy Finnican. OR, challenged to cough up all the evidence, tapes, memos, written orders, resumes of officers involved and anything else relevant to the case, after interrogatories have been served and answered, and documents and other physical evidence produced, the government may make a multimillion dollar settlement as it did in the Ruby Ridge case OR the Finnican family may withdraw its civil action when possessed of all relevant evidence. Right now, we simply do not know.
I might add that the law enforcement officers, if charged with crimes, have the same right to due process of law as any other citizen, including the right to a jury trial and the right to be found guilty, if at all, only by a unanimous verdict by jurors convinced of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Right now, they and those involved at this nature center, are "not guilty in the contemplation of our law." They, all of them, will remain so unless and until so convicted by a jury, according to the standards of our laws.
The justifications you cite for the killing of Finnican, as I understand the facts, are NOT adequate justification at law for killing him.
It is a factual determination yet to be made by a jury as to whether he "reached into his jacket." If he did and they so determine, whether as to criminal charges against the LEOs or civil matters against them, that justification would be the best in show but it STILL has to be proven and their are a LOT of conflicting interpretations as to just what happened.
"He should not have driven off." Perhaps, but, driving off is rather disproportionate to any attempt to justify executing him by the roadway.
"He should not have told the world that he would rather die than give up." This too would have to be proven but it won't be because it is irrelevant as a justification for killing him. Being a damn fool is not, in and of itself, a capital offense or an offense at all.
"He should not have participated in taking over the government building." I certainly agree that neither he nor anyone else should have taken over that building. There was nothing at all proportional to be gained by doing so. I don't at all have a grip on the underlying controversy over some of their friends being sentenced hard for arson charges although that seems a bit fishy as government behavior. Seizing some silly federal nature center wa a futile gesture from the get go and one that put its perps and LEOs at unnecessary risk for nothing that one might articulate. Again, however, being damn ools should not, in and of itself, trigger impromptu capital punishment or the risk thereof.
Was Cliven Bundy even present at either the nature center OR in the vehicle. I am under the impression he, like Vladimir Putin, Amelia Earhart and Judge Crater, was not present. Irrelevant. If you are referencing the much earlier confrontation at Cliven Bundy's ranch, that resulted in the government backing down, at least for the time being.
"He should not have been hanging out with the Bundys. Perhaps not but he had a First Amendment Freedom of Association given to him by God and which the government is bound to protect and not attack. At the time he was killed he was fleeing a vehicle on a public highway in deep snow and not hanging out with anyone. Finnican likely ought not to be dead but he is. Charlie Manson still lives. Go figure! I find Sharon Tate ad her guests and the LaBiancas to be a lot more sympathetic victims than the government and its temporary loss of control over some closed down nature center.
I have a general sympathy for LEOs but my patience with the FBI is wearing thinner after Waco, Oklahoma City and Ruby Ridge.
JFK is not a hero of mine but the words of his inaugural address regarding Third World dictatorships come to mind: Those who make peaceful evolution IMPOSSIBLE make violent revolution INEVITABLE. None of us should want to see that. We are edging ever closer to banana republic status and I want to see some positive evolution away from recent tyranny. I am too elderly and ill and frail for revolution.
The legal standard is that LEOs may use “that force and ONLY that force which is NECESSARY to achieve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” Killing a man is a serious enterprise and demands serious justification.
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.
