Posted on 01/31/2016 9:23:41 AM PST by Sioux-san
There are several reasons why we have chosen not to dig into this specific aspect of this event, after posting the first three research articles. Here are the ones we are comfortable stating:
The freedom continuum has two diametrically opposing forces on either end. On one end, the left, if you travel outward from democracy to socialism to communism eventually you arrive at totalitarianism. The absolute power of government over the individual. The maximum amount of liberty lost.
On the oppositional end, the right, again if you travel from democracy to a constitutional republic and keep going, eventually you arrive at a place absent of any government. This is anarchy. This is law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Mad Max type societal tribe formation.
Neither path, left nor right, is good when taken to its ultimate conclusion.
However, the freedom continuum is not linear.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Do you know what "objective" is?
Yes, I do.
It's the video camera that they took away from the people in Finicum's truck. I would say that was pretty objective.
Maybe they stored it with the door from Mount Carmel. :)
I don't even mention the other video cameras on the scene that were running. :)
At 9:33 in the unedited video the guy on the left has got a weapon in his extended left arm less than 12 feet away from Finicum.
I would actually say 10 feet, but I'll be generous.
Use the rear end of Finicum's truck as a gauge. Trucks are just over 6 feet wide at the rear.
I keep seeing people posting that "no one was even near him", 50 feet was the closest, "no one near enough to use a Taser" etc.
The guy looks like an 19th century Sioux Indian counting coup.
I completely agree with your assessment of the situation at the first stop.
You're aware, of course, that both women that were in the truck have alleged that the truck was fired upon at the first stop.
So going into survival mode makes sense.
Of course, at least one of the women also alleged that they had a video camera (which I presume was running) in the truck with them.
How whacky is that! Only paranoid people would think like that.
Yes, I have to agree.
You of course DID see what Ammon Bundy said to his wife about the second roadblock?
from an article: "We also know that Ammon told his wife that the FBI agents were agitated about what had happened, that it didn't go right and they [the second roadblock guys] shouldn't have fired on him and killed him."
It appears as though the second road block guys may have screwed the pooch.
I think it had something to do with the blind curve setup, and Finicum's speed.
Someone shoud have thought beforehand to drop a standing dead diagonally across the road just before the blind curve, with enough room to get by, but enough to force someone who was fleeing to slow down.
Have you seen the video?
I'm sorry. Believing in conspiracies is fun. But as a general rule, conspiracies are nearly impossible to pull off. Especially when the conspirators are government employees.
I'd like to believe that our evil dictator, Obama, ordered the murder of LaVoy and that his black helicopter operatives murdered him and the government doctored all the video and destroyed all evidence to the contrary, but in the real world, that is not really likely.
The evidence released so far shows that this was a good shoot. LaVoy vowed that he would die rather than go to prison. He got his wish. Nobody else died. Everyone else was taken into custody.
Not sure I buy your eyeballing of distance but even if accurate you intentionally ignore the fact that he started reaching for his side while the rear agent was probably 50 feet away.
The agent got closer at the end, but you claim LeVoy was reaching for the taser darts fired by that agent while he was clearly out of taser range.
Why?
You need to get a grip, P-Marlowe.
I point out where a guy is using a Taser, and that one of the women said they had a video camera that was taken from them, and you start screaming about "black helicopter operatives" and "conspiracies".
I came around to Jeff Head's point of view about this not being an assassination.
I just have remaining questions about some of the obvious visual evidence, and the eyewitness evidence.
You simply refuse to discuss it, and instead bound wildly off on a tangent, howling about "objectivity".
This is the way things have ALWAYS been done on Free Republic.
I'm just following objective forms that were established here long before Jeff joined.
Yes, that's right. Jeff is a relative newcomer to me. :)
So, lighten up. If you don't want to examine things that are plainly evident, then that's your prerogative.
The truck's rear end is right in the scene with both Finicum and the guy on the left.
The truck's rear end is just over 6 feet wide.
Have you never used a ruler?
I was generous on saying 12 feet. It's probably less.
People were claiming 50 feet. People were claiming no one near enough to use a Taser.
You yourself were arguing no one within 15 feet.
I'm still arguing that the agent behind LeVoy was closer to 50ft than 15ft when LeVoy first reached for his side.
Do you disagree?
There's possible shooting going on by the other guy on the right at the same time.
Finicum may have been grabbing at a gunshot wound before he got Tased.
I'm not especially concerned about it. When the videos with sound show up, we'll be able to figure out which actions tie in with which motions by Finicum.
Of course -if the videos with sound DON'T show up, then the "he was drawing a gun!" crowd will win by default, because they can make any claim they want to, then.
I've seen some people claim that no shots were hitting the truck, when you can see the snow puffing, and the windows starring or cracking.
Nevertheless, terrorism charges are ridiculous. Even the judge thought so. But years later the federal government appealed the decision and brought the charge.
That's not what you said in post 14:
"LaVoy went to the Taser prongs sticking out of his left back - not his shoulder holster."
You keep flogging this Taser hypothesis with no evidence on your side. In fact, the video argues against you.
I believe they are generally trained better than the cowboys in the video. There doesn't appear to be any identifying markers usually worn by legitimate LEOs. Have the shooters actually been identified as members of specific LEO's?
I ask that because my concern rests not in the 'who struck John' distraction but as others have already pointed out we are watching an out of control administration getting increasingly arrogant in the actions it chooses to take against those who question the right of the political elite to make up their rules as they go along and discard our Constitution as they see fit.
As for the shooting site, there was a lot of blacktop between the site of the first stop and the road block. Was it necessary to set up behind a curve in the road when the snow could have been used as a tool almost anywhere along Rt 395 to impede any attempt to go around a road block.
How likely would a crazed fugitive seeking to escape federal arrest for criminal charges as serious as the Finicum party believed they were facing put his brakes on when suddenly facing a road block?
Yet, anyone watching the video can see the truck's brake lights go on almost immediately when the driver sees the vehicles blocking the road ahead making it less likely that the maneuver into the snow on the left side of the road was an effort to go around the road block than it was to avoid a crash.
Your observation about not putting your people in the line of fire was one that popped into my mind real quick and I'm sure into the minds of most viewers with any firearm use experience.
That shooting looked like it was modeled after the opening sequence of the Wild Bunch movie. So yes, indeed, if that wasn't a planned killing, it's going to take a whole lot of explaining how things got so far out of control so fast and why two Oregon senators and assorted federal bureaucrats got so furious they felt the need to launch a half-assed operation on a group of concerned civic minded citizens who only appeared to be threat to no one but an increasingly shaky political elite.
Just two more cents from me.
When we first see the agent in the trees on the video, he's between 42-45 feet away from THE TRUCK.
He's about 30 feet away from Finicum.
Now, when Finicum first drops his hands to a level where there may be a weapon, the guy on the right's weapon is 18-20 feet away from Finicum (arm braced and extended, and he appears to have planted his feet solidly).
Very nice range to shoot, but the guy on the left may be in the line of fire, so a shot may be unsafe.
The guy on the left is 25 feet away at this time.
So, yes, I disagree.
25 feet is closer to 15 feet than it is to 50 feet.
As I said, when we first see the guy on the left, he's about 30 feet away from Finicum.
I initially agreed with your analysis, but no longer agree after having watched the video a few more times.Based on the video, the officer to the left was not a shooter, but was using a taser. I say this for four reasons:
(1) He has the weapon in his left hand in a single handed grip, and I see no evidence of recoil in that left hand;
(2) He reaches with his right hand for his right hip while using the weapon in his left hand. This movement only makes sense if he is reaching for a pistol for the event that his less lethal weapon is ineffective;
(3) He would not have a safe shot. Police are not known as the best shots, and his line of fire would have exposed the entire roadblock to his fire; and
(4) It appears as if you can see this officer stripping (like in fly-fishing) wire from the taser as he walks around Lavoy.
I don't think anyone at the roadblock shot Finnicum. Going back to point (3) above, none of the police at the roadblock would have had a safe line of fire because of the position of the officer in the upper left.
The only shooter was likely the officer in the lower center as he was the only officer with a safe line of fire.
With this said, it seems that the officer in the center shot much earlier than the officer with the taser, and it seems likely that Lavoy was reacting to the impact of bullets when he went for his side.
Overall, this isn't open and shut and the video doesn't resolve doubt as to whether Lavoy was murdered or justifiably killed by the officers at the roadblock...
Maybe so, but not relevant to your claim that the guy behind LeVoy Tased him in the back.
At 9:29 in the CTH video LeVoy is reaching to his side. The agent behind him is out of the frame, at least 30 feet away and still behind a tree, and you claim that he had already Tased LeVoy.
Not plausible.
But it was that close.
I had to go with the transparent metric ruler. :)
Nevertheless, terrorism charges are ridiculous. Even the judge thought so. But years later the federal government appealed the decision and brought the charge.
I agree this was not “terrorism” - the only reason I can think of that mandatory sentencing guidelines applied was that Al Queda in their Inspire magazine written to encourage lone wolf Jihad attacks has long promoted the use of wildfires to attack the U.S. I am guessing in the post-9/11 legislative frenzy (I am not a big fan) this was codified into law by congress, but I have not looked at the history of the law. I think Congress did many bad things in hindsight post-9/11 as did the Bush administration. There are many changes to the law that are put into big sweeping pieces of legislation by congress so your beef is with congress.
I believe the Judge in this case retired shortly after he sentenced them the first time. The prosecutors are supposed to file appeals if sentencing guidelines are not upheld by Judges and appeals are a very lengthy process. They likely appealed the sentencing decision immediately - it then awaits a hearing by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who remanded the Hammonds back to court for sentencing within the guidelines. The sentence was not immediately imposed because it was appealed again and the Supreme Court refused to hear it (in effect they upheld the 9th Circuit finding).
There is nothing fast about the appeals process in any court - especially not federal court. They would have appealed right away, but it took 3 years for the appeal to be settled and I believe that is probably typical for a federal appeal.
Federal law is a hammer - not a scalpel. Always has been and always will be. Mandatory sentencing guidelines are put in place by congress to bring about sentencing consistency in all federal courts and prevent lifetime appointed Judges from doing stuff like this (state court, but you get the point).
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/28/nation/la-na-montana-judge-20130829
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.