Video with Audio of the murder of Lavoy

Originally Posted By: Plant.Oneplease correct me if i'm wrong, but the following statement - especially the section highlighted in red - is in regards to ruby ridge and not the oregon stuff. at least thats the way it reads. if its not, the author of the article handled the transition from the ruby ridge history to the oregon BLM issue reeeeely poorly - because i dont see anywhere in the article (other than here) about evidence being removed and replaced. as such it appears that the author was possibly being intentionally vague to inflame tensions surrounding the oregon issue

Quote:
UDuhYT0.jpg


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/aug/21/timeline-opr-report-ruby-ridge/

this article references said event

Quote:Early April 1993

Assistant U.S. Attorney Howen meets with Special Agent Wages to discuss his trial testimony. Wages informs Howen that the “Y” scenes photographs were taken after the bullets had been removed and replaced. Howen takes notes of this disclosure.

Exactly, Ruby Ridge was in 1992. Even so it doesn't mean the alleged shots fired by the FBI were not justified (at least they aren't stating such at this point), but they are certainly alluding to the fact they have evidence the FBI did fire and are not admitting so. Which will probably be the thing that hangs him/them.
 
Originally Posted By: littledawgOriginally Posted By: TnslimIMO, it's murder if you shoot a guy in the back.

That is the most ignorant statement I've read on here.

Ok wiseass, what would you call it? There were no shots fired or even a visible gun in hand by the man who was shot 3 times in the back. Looks pretty clear to me.
 
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZOriginally Posted By: littledawgOriginally Posted By: TnslimIMO, it's murder if you shoot a guy in the back.

That is the most ignorant statement I've read on here.


Keep reading Sir, Wood troll will be along shortly.
smile.gif


I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I see Semper Fi on your posts, so I assume at some point you were a Marine. If so, its probably a fair assumption that you have received extensive combat training. So having some knowledge of what happens physically and mentally during a deadly force situation should provide a different insight to what actually happens when the trigger is pulled. Even if your not a combat veteran, I assume you have participated in various drills or shooting simulators where rounds go absolutely everywhere when people are faced with a deadly confrontation. People don't think or carefully or consciously take aim, they just react in a fraction of a second.

This is not TV and subjects do not square off or hold still. The subject may or may not move or react after being hit. A persons brain does not function fast enough to tell your finger to quit pulling the trigger even after the subject begins to move or react for whatever reason, e.g; falling down, advancing, running, etc. The round traveling down range certainly can't stop or change trajectory once it is discharged. It is quite common to see individuals shot in the back or side in justified shootings. They will and should keep shooting until the threat is stopped regardless of where the rounds hit. I don't expect the average Joe who watches too much CSI to understand this, but a veteran should. Thus making assumptions or ignorant statements about someone being shot in the back as a basis for a murder is just plain ignorance.

Here is another fact, people who fire a weapon in a deadly force encounter will never remember how many rounds they fired. This is the reason LEO's are issued a certain number of duty rounds and must report a duty round discharge for any reason. If a shooting does happen the investigators will know precisely how many rounds were fired. I'm sure policies vary from agency to agency, but generally speaking that is how it works.
 
Originally Posted By: TnslimOriginally Posted By: littledawgOriginally Posted By: TnslimIMO, it's murder if you shoot a guy in the back.

That is the most ignorant statement I've read on here.

Ok wiseass, what would you call it? There were no shots fired or even a visible gun in hand by the man who was shot 3 times in the back. Looks pretty clear to me.

It simply doesn't matter if he had a gun in his hand. If he went for his gun or they thought he was going for a gun the shooting is justified. It does not matter where the rounds hit. To suggest it is murder or even a cowardly act to shoot someone in the back is an ignorant statement.
 
I bet you would feel different if that someone who got 3 shots in the back without a gun in their hand was your father. It would be different if those shots came from the folks facing him and actually saw him grabbing a gun or actually saw the gun but the guy that was behind him could not have seen the gun. I stand on my statement. It was a cowardly and murderous act on the part of the shooter.
 
I disagree, I never shot anyone in the back. There is time when it that moment presents itself, and when i look down the sights i saw their eye's. regardless of long range or touching situtations.

Not to say i wouldn't shoot, but in this case he didn't pose a threat to anyone at that moment, he wasn't drawn and didn't discharge a firearm. I wouldn't have shot him.
 
Originally Posted By: littledawgOriginally Posted By: Plant.Oneplease correct me if i'm wrong, but the following statement - especially the section highlighted in red - is in regards to ruby ridge and not the oregon stuff. at least thats the way it reads. if its not, the author of the article handled the transition from the ruby ridge history to the oregon BLM issue reeeeely poorly - because i dont see anywhere in the article (other than here) about evidence being removed and replaced. as such it appears that the author was possibly being intentionally vague to inflame tensions surrounding the oregon issue

Quote:
UDuhYT0.jpg


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/aug/21/timeline-opr-report-ruby-ridge/

this article references said event

Quote:Early April 1993

Assistant U.S. Attorney Howen meets with Special Agent Wages to discuss his trial testimony. Wages informs Howen that the “Y” scenes photographs were taken after the bullets had been removed and replaced. Howen takes notes of this disclosure.

Exactly, Ruby Ridge was in 1992. Even so it doesn't mean the alleged shots fired by the FBI were not justified (at least they aren't stating such at this point), but they are certainly alluding to the fact they have evidence the FBI did fire and are not admitting so. Which will probably be the thing that hangs him/them.


right, i'm not trying to deny in any way that there may be wrong doing - specifically as you mentioned denying that they fired their weapons during a post-debrief. i was just pointing out that a highlighted section of the article posted was NOT in reference to the current situation and that i felt the author poorly worded said article in reference to past events not related to the present day.

had the highlighted line in question read "then replace by FBI agents coordingating the search at Ruby Ridge" i wouldnt have even bothered to comment on it at all, nor do i feel that it would have ended up a highlighted section on this thread by the OP.
 
First...if he complies at the traffic stop,he's here to argue his point today.
Second...the rounds that the HRT guy denied firing are a problem for him and the FBI.
Third...the passengers mention "where are the guns?"
Fourth...the passengers conceal their positions and make furtive movements continuously.
Fifth...it appears an officer was knocked down as he swerved to the left, partly the officers fault for bad positioning.
Sixth...doesn't appear to be a blind curve, they react and draw attention to what's ahead
Most importantly...his hand HAD been up, but are down around the front opening of his coat when he is shot. Not to mention how he exited the vehicle so quickly and refuses to stand still. Yes shot to the backs he is continually spinning.

The passengers are compliant and are taken in custody without further force as a result.

Tbone, I agree with the vast majority of your thoughts on here but can't believe you wouldn't put what you perceived as a threat to your team down, no matter if it was to the back or not. I'm not talking about this incident, but in general.

Both sides of this could of worked to diffuse and avoid this long before it came to traffic stops and roadblocks. I'd like to see one more angle, from an in car cam if available on one of the vehicles pursuing him.

Bottom line is no one will benefit from what happened here and both sides share some blame and need to accept it. If this was a ghetto thug that behaved in the same way the thread would be titled "dindonuffin..." And someone would have already said one less democrat.

Before you start with the I'm a cop bs, I see issues with their position and think it never should have come to this to begin with.
 
this was a case of law enforcement picking a fight.
why did no law enforcement approach the vehicle when it was stopped?
if they knew he was going to meet the sheriff, why the road block?
why were shots continuing to be fired after the guy was down?
why did fbi shoot and then lie about it?

does anyone wonder why there was a drone in the air so quickly?
how did the video on her phone survive law enforcement possession?
how was she allowed to keep her phone or get it back?
if they knew where he was going, when he was going there, why did they pick that location?

to me it seems that they had INTENT to kill this guy when they started out that day. they wanted to send a message to all of his cohorts that they hold the power and will do what they want. i did not see the man draw a gun, attempt to draw a gun, or act threatening in any way. in deep snow like that, a person cannot move quickly, so he was not likely to run away. if the guy was intent on a firefight, why did he not ever have a weapon in his hand?
 
Originally Posted By: 6724this was a case of law enforcement picking a fight.
why did no law enforcement approach the vehicle when it was stopped?
if they knew he was going to meet the sheriff, why the road block?
why were shots continuing to be fired after the guy was down?
why did fbi shoot and then lie about it?

does anyone wonder why there was a drone in the air so quickly?
how did the video on her phone survive law enforcement possession?
how was she allowed to keep her phone or get it back?
if they knew where he was going, when he was going there, why did they pick that location?

to me it seems that they had INTENT to kill this guy when they started out that day. they wanted to send a message to all of his cohorts that they hold the power and will do what they want. i did not see the man draw a gun, attempt to draw a gun, or act threatening in any way. in deep snow like that, a person cannot move quickly, so he was not likely to run away. if the guy was intent on a firefight, why did he not ever have a weapon in his hand?




Your exactly right. They basically ambushed them. The stage was perfectly set. Sometimes I wonder what law enforcement is protecting.
 
ambush or not, it was still suicide by cop. he could have walked away and had his day in court and still be breating and not have any extra holes in his body. his actions got him shot. nothing more.
 
Originally Posted By: skinnyminny

Your exactly right. They basically ambushed them. The stage was perfectly set. Sometimes I wonder what law enforcement is protecting.


They are protecting the continuity of government lawlessness. Basically abdicating their oath as sworn law enforcement officers and their responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution. They want to send a message to anyone willing to stand against their illegal and unconstitutinal activities, the hostile theft of private properties using government paramilitary bureaucracies and regulations designed to be used as a weapon to steal private properties hidden behind a lie of environmentalism.
 
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZOriginally Posted By: azmastablasta

The discovery of that gunfire and conduct afterward by the agent and four other agents have triggered a criminal investigation that could result in the prosecution of all five. The agents all serve on the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. Authorities on Tuesday released few details about the matter and didn't identify the agents by name.

The U.S. Justice Department's Office of Inspector General is now investigating what it said in a statement were "allegations of FBI misconduct." The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office is separately investigating whether agents were justified in using deadly force that day.


The Hostage Rescue Team is among the FBI's most elite outfits. The members have no other job but to work full time as a SWAT-style group, operating from the FBI base in Quantico, Virginia. The team is the FBI's global resource for anti-terrorism operations, but it also is selectively deployed across the country to deal with hostage situations or other unique crises.

One investigator working on the task force pulled together by the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office reported that he had been told soon after the shooting that two state troopers and two FBI agents had fired. He said the FBI agents approached him later to say they hadn't fired their weapons.

In separate interviews later that night, those two FBI agents and the other three on duty at the shooting scene said they hadn't discharged their weapons and repeated these statements in a second round of interviews Feb. 5 and 6, investigators reported.

The second time, the agents insisted that an attorney be present and that they be given an opportunity to "reference their prior statements" if they were going to be asked questions they had already answered in the first interview.

"Of particular concern to all of us is that the HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) operators did not disclose their shots to our investigators or their superiors," said Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson. "Nor did they discuss specific actions they took after the shooting, which are the subject of an ongoing investigation."

Authorities haven't described those "specific actions."

Nelson said "conclusive evidence" about the agents' conduct was presented to U.S. Attorney Bill Williams in Bend on Feb. 18. The next day, the evidence was shown to Greg Bretzing, special agent in charge of the Portland FBI office. On Saturday, Feb. 20, agents from the Justice Department's inspector general and the FBI's Inspections Division traveled to Bend to review the evidence.

Nelson and Dan Norris, the Malheur County district attorney overseeing the shooting investigation, a week later traveled to brief top FBI officials in Washington.

Bretzing said Tuesday, however, that identifying who fired the two shots was unresolved.

Tim Colahan, Harney County district attorney who asked Norris to handle the shooting investigation, said that "we will continue to work to determine how the HRT operators' actions played into the events. We reserve the right, as Oregonians, to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions."

With the indications of FBI misconduct, the Malheur takeover now carries echoes of Ruby Ridge, which resulted in scathing investigations of the FBI and the eventual conviction of an FBI official. The 1992 siege in Idaho started when police sought to arrest anti-government extremist Randy Weaver. His son and his wife were both shot to death during that operation, as was a U.S. marshal.

The resulting investigations into misconduct and mistakes forced the FBI to overhaul its policy for using deadly force and for how it investigates agent-involved shootings. It also prompted changes in the way the FBI deploys the Hostage Rescue Team.

The Justice Department investigated as did the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information. Both found numerous problems with the FBI's conduct during and after Ruby Ridge. The Senate committee cited a poorly executed search by the FBI for evidence, among other things.

"At least one important piece of evidence – a bullet – was removed and then replaced by FBI agents coordinating the search," the committee found.

"Throughout the course of its many reports, the FBI accorded its own agents undue deference," the report said. "Their stories were accepted at face value and were only rarely subject of probing inquiry."

The committee urged public airings of government misconduct for accountability.

"If our government is to maintain – indeed, even deserve – the trust of the American people, it cannot fear or avoid the truth," the committee said in its final report.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_fbi_lie_uncove.html

Wait.. The DOJ and others in Black cases have rushed out and told us the names of the police. Now.. Now they don't want to do that.. double standards.

I also remember being told.. THose are state police not FBI in the black SUVs. It also puts the whole thing in a different light since it's very clear now they pulled a road block despite the group being on it's way to town to turn themselves in to the sheriff and then the FBI pulling this.

All those that were saying this was nothing and not abuse of power.. NOW what do you have to say??



We are just now starting to see the tip of holding police and sheriffs accountable, we are a long long way from getting any out of the FBI or CIA, the NSA never will happen. That went south with the Patriot Act, never will be reversed.
 
Originally Posted By: scobrey

Tbone, I agree with the vast majority of your thoughts on here but can't believe you wouldn't put what you perceived as a threat to your team down, no matter if it was to the back or not. I'm not talking about this incident, but in general.

Both sides of this could of worked to diffuse and avoid this long before it came to traffic stops and roadblocks. I'd like to see one more angle, from an in car cam if available on one of the vehicles pursuing him.


Nice of you to say.. I appreciate that.

Personally to me watching the video, i have been in those situations. I have stared down the car coming at you. They opened fire as it came around the bend. Also it was clear they said they were going to see the sheriff.
All it would have taken it to let them go, and let them pass the road block on a curve and send the sheriff out in a marked car, and this wouldn't have happened.

Setting up on that blind curve in the snow. Come on.. Shooting a man in the back that has not drawn.. That isn't protecting your team it's killing him.. I couldn't have done that to a terrorist in the middle east. Why does the FBI have different ROEs than the troops dealing with terrorists wearing suicide vests?

They had the drone over head the whole time.. Those things can stay on station for hours and hours. I don't like how the Government agencies are handcuffing soldiers when dealing with terrorists, yet suspend Posse Comitatus without due process and review to use military tactics on citizens. His crime was overstaying on a federal park. He was peacefully protesting in the middle of no where. No riots, no looting.. I thought they were a bunch of morons.. But the feds over did it, and now we find out they lied (big surprise) abused their power, and used military assets.. Unless they want to explain to the people that FBI now has their own Drone program, and the EPA. (who have used drones to site ranchers for clean water act violations for letting livestock cross water)

One thing for sure is that I am willing to give American's the benefit of the doubt. We don't need to escalate, and I personally will do what i can to avoid taking another life. I just didn't see the need to go all commando like that on an old man and car load of women.
They illegally stopped him, then road blocked him on a blind curve and opened fire on the vehicle. Where was the justification for that? Everyone at all levels that was involved in this should be fired. They violated their rights, and should be prosecuted for it.

Look what they are doing to the soldier that stopped a pedifile in Afghan and gave him a beating for holding a boy hostage and raping him for days. Is that really the government we support as citizens? I don't see support for this type of government in the constitution when i read it.
 
I agree our government has gone in bad direction, I'm wary of them too. I've got no problem wth the roadblock, other than no escape avenue and the idiot standing on the wrong side of it.
With his behavior, his hands being down around the front of his pocket etc... I can see the shooting going the way it did. However, I think the main point to me is both sides could have stooped it before it got to that point.

I do have a rel problem with shooting at the fleeing vehicle at the initial traffic stop, bad juju there. Lying about it makes it much worse and puts a serious cloud over the whole situation.
 
Documents: OSP moved fatal traffic stop to avoid Grant County sheriff
Released documents show OSP and FBI initially considered Grant County location for Jan. 26 action.
Amanda PeacherOregon Public Broadcasting
Published on March 10, 2016 5:58PM

Photo contributed by Dave Hannibal
Highway 395 north of Burns was closed in both directions Jan. 26 for a law enforcement action that led to the arrests of many of the leaders of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and the death of one.
Photo contributed by Dave Hannibal Highway 395 north of Burns was closed in both directions Jan. 26 for a law enforcement action that led to the arrests of many of the leaders of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and the death of one.
Buy this photo
The Eagle/Marissa WilliamsA roadside memorial for LaVoy Finicum on Highway 395 where he was shot and killed by police Jan. 26 when authorities say he reached multiple times for a weapon. An investigation into the shooting determined the fatal shots by Oregon State Police were justified. Two shots by FBI agents that did not hit Finicum, which were not disclosed to investigators, are under further investigation.
The Eagle/Marissa WilliamsA roadside memorial for LaVoy Finicum on Highway 395 where he was shot and killed by police Jan. 26 when authorities say he reached multiple times for a weapon. An investigation into the shooting determined the fatal shots by Oregon State Police were justified. Two shots by FBI agents that did not hit Finicum, which were not disclosed to investigators, are under further investigation.
Buy this photo
Ammon Bundy, left, and Ryan Bundy were arrested Jan. 26 en route from Burns to a community meeting in John Day where they were expected to speak.
Ammon Bundy, left, and Ryan Bundy were arrested Jan. 26 en route from Burns to a community meeting in John Day where they were expected to speak.
Eight people were arrested Jan. 26 on charges related to the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns: top row, from left, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier and Shawna Cox; bottom row, from left, Joseph O'Shaughnessy, Ryan Payne and Pete Santilli. Not pictured is Jon Ritzheimer who was arrested in Arizona. Also mentioned in the criminal complaint is Robert
Eight people were arrested Jan. 26 on charges related to the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns: top row, from left, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier and Shawna Cox; bottom row, from left, Joseph O'Shaughnessy, Ryan Payne and Pete Santilli. Not pictured is Jon Ritzheimer who was arrested in Arizona. Also mentioned in the criminal complaint is Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, who was not arrested and is likely the person shot and killed by police during arrests on Highway 395 between John Day and Burns.
MULTIMEDIA
Finicum shooting police report pdf file

During an interview with investigators about the shooting death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, an OSP officer said officials were originally considering a location in Grant County for the traffic stop operation, a newly released investigation report shows.

Had the stop occurred in Grant County, then the group would have been closer to Sheriff Glenn Palmer, and the entire interaction would have taken place within Palmer’s jurisdiction. And that’s exactly why law enforcement opted not to make the traffic stop within Grant County boundaries, said the OSP officer, identified in the documents as “Officer No. 1.”

Law enforcement designed the Jan. 26 stop to arrest leaders of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation. “I knew going into it that there was a sheriff in Grant County that was supporting the movement or the ideology behind what [the occupiers] were pushing,” Officer No. 1 told investigators. “I knew that there was a large amount of community members in Grant County that supported their beliefs ... for a very simple way to put it, they were not friendly to law enforcement conducting any enforcement actions, and mainly the Federal Bureau of Investigation and federal agencies,” the officer said.

The change of plan, which was coordinated by the FBI and OSP, is noteworthy because the militant group was reportedly planning to meet with Palmer.

In video released this week, Finicum can be heard yelling out the window of his parked truck to OSP officers.

“I’m going over to meet with the sheriff in Grant County,” Finicum shouted. “You can come along with us and talk with us over there.”

“That day there was discussions about a location which was actually in Grant County,” Officer No. 1 told investigators. “It was a large canyon that had tactically beneficial areas, and through the planning process, as you now know, we moved the location where we were going to conduct this traffic stop and arrest to — into Harney County.”

The arrest of the militant leaders, including Ammon Bundy, and the shooting of Finicum did eventually take place in Harney County along Highway 395. Sheriff Palmer has said that he met with some of the occupiers prior to the Jan. 26 incident but has denied that he was planning to meet with the militants that night. The state agency that licenses law enforcement officers has recommended the state Department of Justice investigate Palmer’s conduct. That’s after the agency received several formal complaints about Palmer’s communication with the occupiers. The DOJ has not yet announced whether it will pursue an investigation into Sheriff Palmer.

Palmer did not return OPB’s requests for comment. On Thursday, the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office released a redacted report of the investigation into the Jan. 26 officer-involved shooting death of Finicum, a leader of the occupation at the refuge. The 360-page report from the Central Oregon Major Incident Team is only part of the investigation.

The Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office said more documents would be made available as redactions are complete. Investigators said at a Tuesday press conference that eight shots were fired that day — six from the OSP and two by members of the FBI hostage rescue team. The two shots fired by FBI officials will be the subject of another investigation, because the agents did not initially disclose firing at Finicum. The interviews of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team are not included in Thursday’s release because they’re part of the ongoing investigation by the Federal Inspector General’s Office.
 
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZOriginally Posted By: scobrey

Tbone, I agree with the vast majority of your thoughts on here but can't believe you wouldn't put what you perceived as a threat to your team down, no matter if it was to the back or not. I'm not talking about this incident, but in general.

Both sides of this could of worked to diffuse and avoid this long before it came to traffic stops and roadblocks. I'd like to see one more angle, from an in car cam if available on one of the vehicles pursuing him.


Nice of you to say.. I appreciate that.

Personally to me watching the video, i have been in those situations. I have stared down the car coming at you. They opened fire as it came around the bend. Also it was clear they said they were going to see the sheriff.
All it would have taken it to let them go, and let them pass the road block on a curve and send the sheriff out in a marked car, and this wouldn't have happened.

Setting up on that blind curve in the snow. Come on.. Shooting a man in the back that has not drawn.. That isn't protecting your team it's killing him.. I couldn't have done that to a terrorist in the middle east. Why does the FBI have different ROEs than the troops dealing with terrorists wearing suicide vests?

They had the drone over head the whole time.. Those things can stay on station for hours and hours. I don't like how the Government agencies are handcuffing soldiers when dealing with terrorists, yet suspend Posse Comitatus without due process and review to use military tactics on citizens. His crime was overstaying on a federal park. He was peacefully protesting in the middle of no where. No riots, no looting.. I thought they were a bunch of morons.. But the feds over did it, and now we find out they lied (big surprise) abused their power, and used military assets.. Unless they want to explain to the people that FBI now has their own Drone program, and the EPA. (who have used drones to site ranchers for clean water act violations for letting livestock cross water)

One thing for sure is that I am willing to give American's the benefit of the doubt. We don't need to escalate, and I personally will do what i can to avoid taking another life. I just didn't see the need to go all commando like that on an old man and car load of women.
They illegally stopped him, then road blocked him on a blind curve and opened fire on the vehicle. Where was the justification for that? Everyone at all levels that was involved in this should be fired. They violated their rights, and should be prosecuted for it.

Look what they are doing to the soldier that stopped a pedifile in Afghan and gave him a beating for holding a boy hostage and raping him for days. Is that really the government we support as citizens? I don't see support for this type of government in the constitution when i read it.

Agree Tbone. Good points. Law enforcement had weapons drawn already. His was in a pocket. The man with weapon drawn will win that one every time. No need to shoot so quick justified or not.
 
Back
Top