| Author | Message | ||
     Rick_a |
You know, when I get stopped for speeding there's a little less drama... That's a whole lot of assets for a "routine stop." That much I know. When you corner someone there is only fight, flight, or surrender. It really comes down to whether they were actually fired upon at the first stop or not.} | ||
| Julie |
When you get stopped for speeding, you probably haven't been illegally trespassing on federal property for over 20 days, posting on social media that you are willing to die for your cause, and summoning for more of you armed terrorist buddies to come join you. If you watch the video, you'll see from the start that this wasn't a "routine stop", rather it was a felony stop and the police were following protocol. They have both vehicles stopped, the officers are covered behind their vehicles and are using their PA to tell the occupants of the stopped vehicles to exit - that's how a felony stop works. At about the 5 minute mark, the stopped white truck fails to comply and accelerates away. The police aren't stupid idiots - of course they have a drone in the sky and more units up the road in the event that these terrorist thugs do not comply at the initial stop. That's what police do - they prepare for idiot terrorist thugs to be stupid and not follow the rule of law. Turns out the police were correct in predicting that these known-armed terrorist thugs would try to run. They're lucky that only one of them had to die. | ||
| Ourdee |
I'm looking at that Julie dude's footage, and there are a lot more shots than what was being claimed. Watch for molten metal spray, and watch for puffs of white that dissipate quickly near the right front door. Did that footage come from the RD drones? | ||
| Sifo |
It really comes down to whether they were actually fired upon at the first stop or not. It occurred to me while at work that there could be other explanations for what appears to be reaching for something in his coat. Without sound, it's impossible to know when the shooting started. It's possible that his reaching, presumably for a gun, could be in response to shots being fired. I really don't know. I'm sure this team has video from the ground, with sound. What I do know is that they laid the BS on pretty thick at the press conference. There was zero need for this sort of confrontation at that time. It's funny. For once, I'm not in complete disagreement with the baby killer. Take a stand like that against the Feds, and you are likely to wind up dead. Of course, that doesn't make it right. I wonder if she would have felt the same way if they had started shooting looters in Ferguson, or at OWS? | ||
| Reepicheep |
Agreed. If Julie's assumptions are right, her conclusion is right. Although I have to admit her passion for summary execution on any one who is both breaking the law and fleeing is a little disturbing. I won't worry unless the facts don't match what the government claims. So far things don't seem to completely line up, but it's pretty early, so that in itself doesn't mean much. | ||
| Ourdee |
Julie, There are subtitles in this. Think about his words. note: This post is for Julie. | ||
| Pwnzor |
trespassing on federal property That says it all, right there. No citizen of the United States of America is trespassing on "federal property." It's our property, yours and mine. Let's not feed Julie any further, please. | ||
| Rick_a |
Idiot terrorist thugs, huh? Allegedly many ranchers have had their ranches taken over by subversive means for generations. It's not all that far fetched. With their livelihood hanging by a thread then an arrest and unusually long sentence over a trivial matter something really stinks about it. But, I digress. We should just trust the government. "They" always do the right thing... Between two sides of the story lies the truth. There's a lot of grey area here. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
The dead guy was not a terrorist thug, from what I gather he was well respected human who respected life as much as the next man. It looked to me like he had his hands up ... and was complying but walking thru the snowdrifts lost his balance ... and wanted to comply further by removing his pistol ... he was probably just trying to remove the gun... and drop it on the ground... "OK OK I give up" then they shot him in the back... the cop shot him in the back ... NOT the cop that was facing him... the one behind ... doesn't make sense to me. He looked disoriented and there could have been a shouting match going on too but there is no sound. And why did that one cop run toward the truck as it was crashing into the snowbank? Was that target fixation? Then they say driver attempted to kill the officer?? And gives them the excuse to shoot to kill? | ||
| Torquehd |
trespassing on federal property I was puzzled when I went to the Staircase trail in the Olympic National Park, and saw a sign prohibiting firearms.... If there's one place you should be allowed to have firearms, it's your home. If there are two places, it's your home, and anywhere else not owned by private citizens. I didn't lock my pistol in the truck and go for a hike anyway. I turned around and found a different trail to hike on. I'm not going to be a bear's afternoon snack just because some vegetarian with an "O" sticker on his prius got put in charge of the rules for national parks. I would have just carried anyway, but I have been stopped and questioned by rangers in state parks before, not willing to risk it in a federal park. | ||
| Ourdee |
Seems like the shooting was by an OSP officer. | ||
| Ourdee |
That is what FBI states in video discription: Published on Jan 28, 2016 This is the complete video footage of a joint FBI and Oregon State Police traffic stop and OSP officer-involved shooting of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This footage, which has only been edited to blur out aircraft information, was taken by the FBI on 01/26/2016 and released by the FBI on 01/28/2016. Note regarding date/time stamp in the left corner of video: Pilots use Zulu Time, also known as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), when they fly. Zulu time is eight hours ahead of Pacific Standard Time (PST). Therefore, although this footage was taken on January 26, 2016 in Oregon, the date/time stamp on the video shows just after midnight January 27, 2016. | ||
| Sifo |
Fairly short, and well reasoned... | ||
| Sifo |
Back in 1969 my dad purchased a chunk of property. Part of that property shared a small lake with another owner. The lake itself is less than 20 acres. Our property line covers probably 20% or so of the lake. Decades before, that land was a small ranch owned by Minor Becker. Minor's kids chose to leave the ranching life, and as Minor got older, he simply shut the ranch down, selling to my dad. So why is any of this important? Well, had things gone slightly differently, for instance, had Minor's kids stayed with the family ranch business, what would have happened. It's nice to think that they would have had a long happy life as ranchers in the Midwest. Of course that would have proved impossible. What if my dad had decided to restore it to an active ranch? That too would have proved impossible. Why would ranching prove impossible where not long ago it was being done? I'm not discussing any of the economics of the situation. It's not that the county had changed any zoning laws in the area that would prevent ranching. What changed was that the federal government, in this case, the National Park Service decided that they wanted the Lake and the surrounding property. Of course, they didn't want actually pay a fair price for the property. Had our family, or the Becker family continued ranching there, we would have found that the NPS doesn't allow this sort of commercial activity on land that they have laid claim to. There are many non commercial restrictions too. A herd of cattle simply can't survive without a plentiful source of water though. Suddenly that has been made illegal by some pencil-neck bureaucrat in Washington. This is exactly what has been done to thousands of ranches across the country. It's far worse with the big ranches out west. It's not just that a multi-generation business has been arbitrarily shut down. That much is true, but it is far worse than that. Once the livestock is gone, all that's left is the value of the land. The problem is that with the new arbitrary restrictions on this land, it becomes virtually unsalable. You now find yourself under the boot of the federal government, unemployed, and can't even sell the land to pay the taxes. The taxes BTW do not go down, because nothing has changed locally. I really hope this provides just a little insight into what is being done to the people by our government. Personally, I can certainly see where these ranchers are pushed to this sort of act of civil disobedience. Their "occupation" has been far safer for the public than other recent acts of disobedience by other groups that happen to be seen more favorably by our current administration. No building have been burned or destroyed. No people have been harmed. Government functions have not been impeded. Yet this is the group that our government has chosen to meet with deadly force, while other groups are dealt with with kid gloves. In Boston, they were actually "given space to destroy". Of course the space given by the government in that case was other peoples private property. It's becoming more and more clear that we are no longer a nation governed by laws. We fought a bloody war to escape this sort of tyranny. I'm convinced we will fight that war again in our near future. | ||
| Rick_a |
Well said Sifo. There's the sheeple on one end that believe in whatever their government tells them, those that are being trampled under foot, and those fighting for the restoration of their most basic of natural rights labeled as extremists and terrorists. | ||
| Dtaylor |
Before any more settlement (and creation of "private property") takes place, our respective countries really ought to honour or compensate for the multitude of outstanding and illegally broken land treaties made with First Nations peoples. | ||
| Sifo |
| ||
| Sifo |
Before any more settlement (and creation of "private property") takes place, our respective countries really ought to honour or compensate for the multitude of outstanding and illegally broken land treaties made with First Nations peoples. It's unlikely that a government that isn't accountable to it's own citizens is ever going to be accountable for it's broken treaties. I'm not saying past discretions should be forgotten, but you will never have hope of making things right with a corrupt government. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Xben9r |
I have watched the unedited video several times and there seem to be some edit signs. Possibly whoever posted the video edited some and it was unedited when they received it? I don't know I'm no pro but the signs are more than just a zoom change. But one thing is really bothering me about that whole scenario. In the first stop, that was either a complete fail on the pursuers part or an intentional 'make them rabbit' tactic. The first rule of a felony type stop is to contain and make damn sure the suspect can not continue on. Once again though without audio there is no way to know which it is. | ||
| Sifo |
I think I know what you are talking about with the edits. I think it may be from a change to a different lens. I watched the time marking for a couple of those and the timer is unaffected. Then again... The tape was edited to black out various information that was present in the "really" unedited video. I'm really trying to not go down that conspiracy highway though. Video experts will know if there have been edits of content for the sake of a cover up. It would be a huge mistake. This can't be the only video though. Dash cam video from the initial stop would answer many questions. Dash cams normally include sound to. That will tell when the shooting starts. They have to know that people are asking questions about what happened. They are choosing to keep us in the dark. Why? It could be cover up. It could simply be that they feel that the common subjects have no right to know. I'm unable to think of a valid reason that the video couldn't be released. The ex-cop in the video I posted above can't think of a reason either. | ||
| Blake |
http://youtu.be/7g8yfsr7N-E Do you know freedom? | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Sifo |
Hey Blake, I finally took the time to watch that video. Thanks for sharing that. It covers many things that people really need to understand about our government. Sadly, I'm pretty sure most are too insulated from what's going on to have that understanding. It's what the government counts on to continue it's ever increasing control over the individual. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Sifo |
More info on this BS. Time to call cold blooded murder cold blooded murder. http://katu.com/news/local/investigators-release-d etails-into-lavoy-finicum-shooting-case At about 1:40 into the video they talk about the FBI shooting at Finicum twice, but missing. At that point Finicum supposedly goes for a gun in he left pocket (that the FBI knew he carried there) and the FBI shoots him three times. The first two shots were not reported as part of the investigation. They try to justify this because he was using his vehicle as a weapon. The vehicle as a weapon was long out of commission when Finicum was shot down though. This is total BS and cover up. When they started shooting at him, he had a right to defend himself, if he was indeed reaching for a gun. If this were a black man shot down in this manner there would be holy hell to pay. This is just a rancher who was shot down for standing up to a tyrannical government. Time to whitewash it and make it go away. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-weirdnes s-of-illegal-immigration/?singlepage=true Not directly related to the OP but somewhat in a Cultural context. I didn't think it fit any of the Election threads, but maybe it does? | ||
| Torquehd |
When I first saw the video from the ISR, I thought LEO was 100% in the right, after seeing Lavoy reach inside his jacket. BUT The police fired first before there was an imminent threat? That changes EVERYTHING about this situation. I wish they had been honest up front! They fired shots at a vehicle over a traffic violation? Did they know if there were innocent people in the vehicle? The officer that fired the first rounds should be tried for attempted homicide. You DON'T just fire at a vehicle without knowing that everyone in the vehicle needs to die because they are posing a real-time threat to your survival. Like, i don't know, firing a gun at you. And if the driver had been intending to use his vehicle at a weapon, why not aim it at someone instead of a snowbank? Is the life of a snowbank protected? (It may be in Oregon. Liberal @$$ hippies) You can see the officer running TOWARD the vehicle before it ever even stops, the driver was NOT aiming for a person. | ||
| Torquehd |
Sorry this is a double post for all of you metro net people who get offended by that. I just watched the video footage that includes the cellphone video taken by one of the passengers in the truck. And I am pissed. If I had been in that truck, I would be dead too, because as soon as I saw them gun Lavoy down, I would have come out returning fire. Those bastards continued shooting the vehicle after Lavoy was down. WHY? There was NO REASON to continue shooting at the vehicle, and they're lucky as @#$* that they didn't kill anyone else. There were innocent minors in that truck! Those bastards need to be in jail for attempted manslaughter. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
I dont think they were firing bullets at the truck after Tarpman was killed, otherwise it'd have ripped through the door etc But likely beanbags or rubber bullets to break the window and get the tear gas in. As for Oregon being a liberal hippy place...you ever been there? Outside of Portland its very conservative. |
