Who here believes the Federal Government (Justice Dept.) will investigate the Federal Government (FBI) for wrongdoing, find the truth of the matter and hold any guilty parties accountable for their actions?
Who here believes the Federal Government (Justice Dept.) will investigate the Federal Government (FBI) for wrongdoing, find the truth of the matter and hold any guilty parties accountable for their actions?
RIGHT!
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Hmmmmm what makes this police shooting different from many others that are posted on PFF? I see little sympathy for others not complying with the police when committing illegal acts.
Hmmmmm what makes this police shooting different from many others that are posted on PFF? I see little sympathy for others not complying with the police when committing illegal acts.
Yup.... break the law (over and over, in this case) and you pay the price. Suicide by cop... is what LaVoy wanted, and got.
Who here believes the Federal Government (Justice Dept.) will investigate the Federal Government (FBI) for wrongdoing, find the truth of the matter and hold any guilty parties accountable for their actions?
I do. For example, look at the spotlight put on the Ferguson PD. And that was a justified shooting that still lead to long investigations. Some people lost their jobs over the investigation.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Hmmmmm what makes this police shooting different from many others that are posted on PFF? I see little sympathy for others not complying with the police when committing illegal acts.
Nothing but bias "sympathy" for the cause "reason" the person is not complying.
Hate for the corrupt cops and or hate for cops in general helps fuel the fire. But I have to say the bad cops make all of them look bad. The lawlessness should be punished.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-09-2016).]
Hmmmmm what makes this police shooting different from many others that are posted on PFF? I see little sympathy for others not complying with the police when committing illegal acts.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
Yup.... break the law (over and over, in this case) and you pay the price. Suicide by cop... is what LaVoy wanted, and got.
So neither of you has a problem with the FACT several FBI agents LIED to investigators TWICE?
Darth, I watched the video as I am sure you have too, what did you see that the cops did wrong?
Shot at or into a vehicle occupied by more than one person. What if they would have killed one of the other occupants? Does 'conspiracy to impede a federal agent' or whatever they are being charged with punishable by death now?
Shot at or into a vehicle occupied by more than one person. What if they would have killed one of the other occupants? Does 'conspiracy to impede a federal agent' or whatever they are being charged with punishable by death now?
Did anyone else get hurt, or shot other than Lavoy?
Good. Let the process work, then if you are not satisfied, you can sue on LaVoy's behalf
I didn't agree with the tactics Lavoy or his group used. But that doesn't give the government a right to shoot people in the back or shoot at people occupying a vehicle that aren't driving it.
I didn't agree with the tactics Lavoy or his group used. But that doesn't give the government a right to shoot people in the back or shoot at people occupying a vehicle that aren't driving it.
How do you know shots were fired at the occupants, other than Lavoy?
Not that I'm aware of, but how could the officers or agents who shot at the vehicle know - for certain - they would have not hit any other occupants?
That is a good question, but fortunately it did not happen like that. I would guess that all of the shots fired at the truck were mentioned for Lavoy, the driver. But that is only a guess. I saw no shots fired into the truck that were aimed at the other three.
How do you know shots were fired at the occupants, other than Lavoy?
The truck was struck by gunfire, according to reports. At least one round was fired by an FBI agent that hit the truck, according to the news story I posted earlier. Also, as far as we know, Lavoy wasn't hit while he was in the truck. So if law enforcement was aiming at Lavoy, then they missed him and could have easily hit someone else in the truck. Bullets tend to change direction when they strike metal, glass, etc in unpredictable ways. So firing into a vehicle occupied by more than one person is risky - if you are only wanting to hit one person, like the driver.
There was no indication up until this "ambush" that Lavoy or any of the others were going to hurt anybody. The State Police and Federal Agents were under pressure from the Governor and probably the Federal Administration to end the "standoff" quickly. There were calls from all sorts of people demanding they storm the refuge and kill all the occupiers. Hell, you had a town 30 or so miles away from the refuge put in lockdown because of what was going on at the refuge. That makes zero sense unless you are trying to turn local opinion against what is going on. So I'm sure the Oregon State Police and the FBI agents were pressured to escalate the situation and set up this ambush.
That is a good question, but fortunately it did not happen like that. I would guess that all of the shots fired at the truck were mentioned for Lavoy, the driver. But that is only a guess. I saw no shots fired into the truck that were aimed at the other three.
I have not yet seen any video showing the trajectory of every round fired at the truck. The quality of the aerial video is so poor, you can't even tell who is really firing at any given time.
So to say all the shots fired at the truck were meant for Lavoy is pure speculation, but irrelevant nonetheless. The officers involved knew there was more than one occupant. They didn't know if anyone else in that truck was armed or even a threat. They didn't even know Lavoy was armed until after he was lying dead in the snow and they searched him.
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Does 'conspiracy to impede a federal agent' or whatever they are being charged with punishable by death now?
Lavoy was not shot for that charge. He was shot for threatening to produce a firearm for the purpose of causing harm to Law Enforcement. The shooting itself was justifiable.
Lavoy was not shot for that charge. He was shot for threatening to produce a firearm for the purpose of causing harm to Law Enforcement. The shooting itself was justifiable.
I have not yet seen any video showing the trajectory of every round fired at the truck. The quality of the aerial video is so poor, you can't even tell who is really firing at any given time.
So to say all the shots fired at the truck were meant for Lavoy is pure speculation, but irrelevant nonetheless. The officers involved knew there was more than one occupant. They didn't know if anyone else in that truck was armed or even a threat. They didn't even know Lavoy was armed until after he was lying dead in the snow and they searched him.
Yes, it is speculation, I even said it was a guess. A good guess given that Lavoy made it clear to LEO'S that he wanted to challenge them to shoot. He even jumped out of the truck without getting shot (not that I know of) and was not shot till he tossed his jacket open to make a purposefully telegraphed reach for a gun. He wanted them to shoot him and he made this clear in the video. The people in the truck made no such moves and thus were not shot. IF they had made the same suicide by COP moves that Lavoy did, then they too would have been shot.
Lavoy was not shot for that charge. He was shot for threatening to produce a firearm for the purpose of causing harm to Law Enforcement. The shooting itself was justifiable.
Did Oregon State Police or the FBI release a statement saying they knew 100% Lavoy was armed with a gun BEFORE they shot him? Did they see the gun?
Why was he shot in the back? He was surrounded by officers. Why didn't the officers he was facing shoot him?
How did the officer that was behind him (and subsequently shot him 3 times) see that he was reaching for his gun when he lowered his arms for the 3rd time?
Did Oregon State Police or the FBI release a statement saying they knew 100% Lavoy was armed with a gun BEFORE they shot him? Did they see the gun?
Why was he shot in the back? He was surrounded by officers. Why didn't the officers he was facing shoot him?
How did the officer that was behind him (and subsequently shot him 3 times) see that he was reaching for his gun when he lowered his arms for the 3rd time?
I'm just asking.
The simple answer is that they did not need to wait till Lavoy fired first. They responded to his body language, and justifiably so. He motioned as if he was drawing a gun, this under the circumstances was enough to believe he was armed and drawing a gun. There is no requirement to get shot at first before Police shoot.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: They responded to his body language, and justifiably so. He motioned as if he was drawing a gun, this under the circumstances was enough to believe he was armed and drawing a gun. There is no requirement to get shot at first before Police shoot.
Black Lives Matter would disagree with you on that, I think. [not that I agree with them at all either, but just sayin]
Who knew body language alone could get you killed, and "justifiably so".
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 03-09-2016).]
I'm not trying to justify anything Lavoy did. Justified shoot, unjustified shoot; it doesn't matter to Lavoy anymore. Maybe he got what he wanted. Maybe not. I didn't know the man, nor did I agree with his tactics.
But what I have a problem with is how this whole situation was handled and how some things were done (ie: setting up the ambush when they knew he was going to meet with a sheriff anyway, shooting at a vehicle that was occupied by people who were not a threat, FBI officials allegedly lying to investigators - twice, etc).
I guess I just find it a bit odd that so many are quick to judge the occupiers and find them guilty before trial but have absolute confidence in the government and condone their actions before the internal investigations are even over.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 03-09-2016).]
I'm not trying to justify anything Lavoy did. Justified shoot, unjustified shoot; it doesn't matter to Lavoy anymore. Maybe he got what he wanted. Maybe not. I didn't know the man, nor did I agree with his tactics.
But what I have a problem with is how this whole situation was handled and how some things were done (ie: setting up the ambush when they knew he was going to meet with a sheriff anyway, shooting at a vehicle that was occupied by people who were not a threat, FBI officials allegedly lying to investigators - twice, etc).
I guess I just find it a bit odd that so many are quick to judge the occupiers and find them guilty before trial but have absolute confidence in the government and condone their actions before the internal investigations are even over.
I did not follow this occupation thing, not even sure why I opened the thread at all? I think I agree with you that the tactics the occupiers used were all bad. I may even agree that their cause was worth fighting? But I am not the person to just believe everything the Gov says. I made my opinion of this incedent based on the information that you and everyone else has. And yes I know I don't yet have all the facts, but from what I do have I would say that the traffic stop was not an ambush, it was a legitimate traffic stop. Why? Keep in mind that the Gov wanted the occupiers out, and when they came out the cops stopped them. Legitimate traffic stop for persons who were wanted by the law. The stop that Lavoy decided to commit suicide buy cop was an effective road block. The truck was successfully stopped without any harm to the occupants twice. Shots were fired as a response to Lavoy's actions.
As for the accusations of lies by Police, that is just an accusation at this point.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-09-2016).]
Who knew body language alone could get you killed, and "justifiably so".
Body language alone did not get him shot. He could have made the same exact gestures anywhere else and would not have been a problem. The totality of circumstances "context" of the situation is what raised the threat awareness. He was at an armed takeover of property that they did not own for a few weeks, they were known to be armed, Lavoy exchanged heated words at the first stop (how many times did Lavoy say shot me in some form?), then a high speed chace (the road had snow on it and driving at a the posted speed could be dangerous) ended with Lavoy almost running over a cop. In every way Lavoy was considered a threat.
You are grabbing at straws here. The shooting was justified. But like the tactics that we agree the occupiers used were wrong, some of the tactics Law Enforcement used may have been wrong? Or at least in hind sight could have been done differently?
Bottom line here is don't take over property you don't own and flash guns, UNLESS you want trouble.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-10-2016).]
I guess I just find it a bit odd that so many are quick to judge the occupiers and find them guilty before trial
Did they take over land that didn't belong to them? Yes. Lots of video, cameras and witnesses to verify. Will they claim they got lost on the way to church??
Did they take over land that didn't belong to them? Yes. Lots of video, cameras and witnesses to verify. Will they claim they got lost on the way to church??
Kind of like Occupy Wall Street, or any other number of protests, sit ins, or demonstrations where the protesters have squatted/occupied land they didn't own.
Kind of like Occupy Wall Street, or any other number of protests, sit ins, or demonstrations where the protesters have squatted/occupied land they didn't own.
And? Did they carry weapons, run road blocks (nearly run over an officer) and say, "today is a good day to die"?
Did they take over land that didn't belong to them? Yes. Lots of video, cameras and witnesses to verify. Will they claim they got lost on the way to church??
What does Church have to do with this? Did I miss where these occupiers were protesting against the government because of the government's persecution of God and Jesus Christ? Why are you always bagging on Christians? Would you be defending these guys if they were Muslims?
Body language alone did not get him shot. He could have made the same exact gestures anywhere else and would not have been a problem. The totality of circumstances "context" of the situation is what raised the threat awareness. He was at an armed takeover of property that they did not own for a few weeks, they were known to be armed, Lavoy exchanged heated words at the first stop (how many times did Lavoy say shot me in some form?), then a high speed chace (the road had snow on it and driving at a the posted speed could be dangerous) ended with Lavoy almost running over a cop. In every way Lavoy was considered a threat.
You are grabbing at straws here. The shooting was justified. But like the tactics that we agree the occupiers used were wrong, some of the tactics Law Enforcement used may have been wrong? Or at least in hind sight could have been done differently?
Bottom line here is don't take over property you don't own and flash guns, UNLESS you want trouble.
I guess my problem with this whole situation is how it was treated differently than others in recent history. The wildlife refuge wasn't burned to the ground. As far as we know, it wasn't looted (not that there was anything there to loot). Nobody's property was destroyed and no innocent civilian lives were being threatened either. The government escalated the situation to force a conclusion, and the result was a police killing of a citizen. Justified shoot? Perhaps. But I believe it could have been resolved without any loss of life. Like I said, the Oregon State Police and the FBI were under enormous pressure to end the occupation of a few small and insignificant government buildings in the middle of nowhere.
But in contrast, law enforcement and the FBI largely steered clear of the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore where civilian lives were in imminent danger and property was being looted and destroyed. The government sat back and let the looters steal, burn, and hurt innocent civilians. The taxpayers in those two areas weren't afforded the same "protection" by the government that the Oregon taxpayers were. WHY?
Is the lesson here that if you want to protest the government the best way to do it is to riot with a large mob - smash, grab, burn, and cause chaos? As I look back at all the riots in recent history, that sure seems to be the method that gets results - and it shouldn't be that way.
But in contrast, law enforcement and the FBI largely steered clear of the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore where civilian lives were in imminent danger and property was being looted and destroyed. The government sat back and let the looters steal, burn, and hurt innocent civilians. The taxpayers in those two areas weren't afforded the same "protection" by the government that the Oregon taxpayers were. WHY?
You might want to check your facts there on Ferguson and Baltimore with regards to the law enforcement presence.
The whole thing was screwed up right from the beginning. The part that I don't understand is all of the shots fired into the car after he was killed. I lost count.
RIGHT!
