Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
If he didn't reach into his pocket, he would not have been shot and be alive today. it was a waste of life and unnecessary death.
Blackstone
Brigadier
We don't know that for a fact. I say that because it's strange Finicum was shot in the back and killed by the agent behind him, where as the multiple agents in front of him didn't feel threatened enough to shoot. To be clear, I go with the official version from FBI, because I didn't see enough evidence from the released video to doubt the Feds, but shot in the back raises legitimate questions.
The bottom line is we agree it was a tragic event, and death could have been prevented death.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's irrelevant if he were shot in the back. The officer who shot him in the back had the best view of Finicum reaching for his left pocket. Also running a barricade and nearly running over an officer doesn't help much when it comes to state of mind... Added to that Finicum was interviewed on TV suggesting he won't surrender.
He was hit multiple times. In the video you can see that he turns toward the officer coming out of the trees , and he appears to reach into his coat, or to his side.
I believe he was hit in the side, and in the side of the face with the first couple of rounds, and my guess is when the officer on that side started shooting, the other one did likewise, who was to the other side.
Once bullets are being fired and the individual starts falling,, and turning somewhat as he does, the bullets can hit him in various places.
The forensics will figure all of that out.
Lavoy was a good man. A good father and grandfather. He and his wife were keeping foster children in their home after all of their kids had grown.
He was not a violent or mean man. I have close friend who knew him from their days as kids in Arizona.
But he made some serious mistakes in his dealings in this situation.
1. He should never have sped off from the 1st stop.
2. He should never have tried to go around the road block. In doing so he very nearly hit an officer who was trying to get him to stop. All of the officers would have viewed that very seriously and as intent by Lavoy, who was driving to be willing to inflict serious bodily harm on them. That is how they are trained and for good reason.
3. When he got out of the car he was acting erratic, and was not getting down. He was armed. My guess is, and from people there, he was apparently tryiong to tell them that he would only talk to the Sheriff. He was trying to somehow reason with them...and the time for that was past. When he appeared to reach to his side...he was ultimately shot. Even though initially he came out with his hands up.
If he had responded differently at any of those three inflection points, he would be alive today.
I feel very bad for him, and his family. It was a senseless death.
The remedies are in the courts now...and we should wait and see what the actual evidence shows.
Last edited:
MwRYum
Major
Of all people, one'd have expect him, an American, fully understood the rules of engagement in such situations, and that includes NOT to give the police / FBI the wrong signal or body language...if he did mentioned he'd not turn himself in, then it points to the "suicide by cop" scenario...
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Reaching into a pocket suddenly is a massive no no when faced with armed police pointing guns at you. Do that and you can expect to get shot, from which direction really doesn't matter.
TBH, I think the FBI agents showed unusual restraint because they knew their every move would be under a microscope.
Had this been an actual random stop, the guy would have been riddled from every angle.
I think that there are two lessons that should be taken from this, both related to each other.
Firstly, the police needs to take serious, fundamental cultural reform to get rid of this closing ranks BS and seriously and sincerely deal with abuses and excessive force used by officers. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, there is too much of a 'judge dred' complex with too many officers. That needs to be ruthlessly stamped out.
Most of the time, suspects act erratically because they do not trust the police so are in internal conflict. They know full well that failure to promptly obey instructions or sudden moves will likely get them killed. But in their back of their minds, often they fear they are dead anyways even if they surrender, especially if they are of certain racial and socio-economic backgrounds.
Often you have innocent people a little too keen to prove their innocence and reach into pockets to get IDs or to turn them out to show they are empty. That happens because people fear police too much.
Instances where suspects are chocked to death while being restrained, suffer mysterious fatal injuries while in custody or downright get shot after being handcuffed etc are utterly unacceptable, and all instances of such should be treated with a massive bias in favour of a prosecution.
The bar for a conviction should also be lowered to make a guilty verdict more likely in such instances while more should be invested in training so officers can confidently and competently handle suspects without having to resort of excessive force as a default setting.
If certain police officers don't like that and threaten to quit, well good riddance.
Regaining the trust and respect of the people is the absolute key to better policing and public relations.
The second lesson should be learnt by the fringe groups who have pathological and irrational mistrust of their own government.
They have plenty of legitimate ways to voice their grievances and seek restitution. Armed revolt is not any of those.
Under no circumstance would armed revolt against your own government be a good idea.
As soon as you use force or the threat of force to try and enforce your position, your position looses all merit and legitimacy.
There is just no winning outcome for you if you do that short of civil war and a revolution, but in that case, everyone looses.
TBH, I think the FBI agents showed unusual restraint because they knew their every move would be under a microscope.
Had this been an actual random stop, the guy would have been riddled from every angle.
I think that there are two lessons that should be taken from this, both related to each other.
Firstly, the police needs to take serious, fundamental cultural reform to get rid of this closing ranks BS and seriously and sincerely deal with abuses and excessive force used by officers. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, there is too much of a 'judge dred' complex with too many officers. That needs to be ruthlessly stamped out.
Most of the time, suspects act erratically because they do not trust the police so are in internal conflict. They know full well that failure to promptly obey instructions or sudden moves will likely get them killed. But in their back of their minds, often they fear they are dead anyways even if they surrender, especially if they are of certain racial and socio-economic backgrounds.
Often you have innocent people a little too keen to prove their innocence and reach into pockets to get IDs or to turn them out to show they are empty. That happens because people fear police too much.
Instances where suspects are chocked to death while being restrained, suffer mysterious fatal injuries while in custody or downright get shot after being handcuffed etc are utterly unacceptable, and all instances of such should be treated with a massive bias in favour of a prosecution.
The bar for a conviction should also be lowered to make a guilty verdict more likely in such instances while more should be invested in training so officers can confidently and competently handle suspects without having to resort of excessive force as a default setting.
If certain police officers don't like that and threaten to quit, well good riddance.
Regaining the trust and respect of the people is the absolute key to better policing and public relations.
The second lesson should be learnt by the fringe groups who have pathological and irrational mistrust of their own government.
They have plenty of legitimate ways to voice their grievances and seek restitution. Armed revolt is not any of those.
Under no circumstance would armed revolt against your own government be a good idea.
As soon as you use force or the threat of force to try and enforce your position, your position looses all merit and legitimacy.
There is just no winning outcome for you if you do that short of civil war and a revolution, but in that case, everyone looses.
MwRYum
Major
To be very honest, your suggestions could only happen in ideal world:
Until the day we can replace police officers with terminators, or iron man armor become standard issue, it's just unfair to tell officers at the line of duty to adopt the "let the suspect shoot first, then we shoot back" approach. It's one thing about unwarrented brutality and suspects giving officers the wrong signals, which in the latter case the suppects is totally begged to get shot.
And you ask those "fringe groups" to go through the systems? Please, the very fact that they formed into fringe groups is because they distrust, if not totally despise, the system in the first place. In short, the only outcome could only be the ugly one.
MwRYum
Major
That means you've been out of the force for at least a decade and a half then? That's because it was around the turn of the century that this term first came up.