Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, February 1, 2016

#WhiteLivesMatter: Eyewitness to Murder - More on the LaVoy Finicum Assassination

LaVoy Finicum and Victoria Sharps
If the eyewitnesses are telling the truth, Finicum's death was a cold-blooded murder! It's a miracle more of the protesters weren't killed.

Eyewitness Shawna Cox says that at the first roadblock the agents began firing. Victoria Sharp, 18, who was going to sing at the meeting was not arrested and she confirms what happened at the first stop. No wonder the protesters fled! At the second roadblock, Finicum got out calling out that they had women in the car. Clearly, the men had no expectation of the treachery in store for them and Finicum was trying to protect the women.


No shots were fired by anyone but the feds. Let me emphasize that. The only ones who fired were the feds. It was no "shootout;" it was a turkey shoot with the FBI targeting the protesters who were going to a community meeting in Grant country with the sheriff to discuss a peaceful way to end the standoff. They left in good faith. Why were they stopped at the supposed traffic stop? There were no warrants or indictments against these protesters. Why was there a roadblock?

According to eye witnesses in the truck there were FBI snipers in the trees. Does this remind you of the Randy Weaver case at Ruby Ridge where federal agents shot a 13-year-old in the back and a sniper shot Vicki Weaver in the face while she stood in the doorway holding her baby? Can anyone believe her death was really an accident?  They had identified her as the anchor of the family. Lon Horiuchi, the sniper who killed her, also participated in the Waco massacre.

And why did the agents fire hundreds of rounds into the truck after all the passengers were out of it? To cover up evidence of how much shooting went on before? This whole thing stinks to high heavens. Wake up, America! Where are the "Hands up; don't shoot!" demonstrations for LaVoy Finicum?

Read more here.

5 comments:

New Sister said...

I am related to a law enforcement officer in Central Oregon informed on this case.
I am also a retired military officer and know our American rules of engagement - our modus operandi - well.
When one accuses law enforcement of "cold-blooded murder" without knowledge of their rules of engagement - how they're trained - one incurs the sin of calumny and scandal.
I happen to know that most Law Enforcement officers are conservative, and actually sympathize with (as do I) Mr. Finicum's issues with Federal Government overreach. (here I admire Carly Fiorina, who identifies the Federal Government as one of the greatest threats to US Sovereignty!]
I also sympathize with law enforcement, who are trained to fire when a weapon is reached for, or when they believe their life is threatened. (The law protects me as well, as a concealed-carry permit holder; I may fire in self defense, when I fear for my life or limb) This is how they are *trained*.
Law enforcement knew exactly where Mr. Finicum carried his 9 mm - he shoulder carried, on his left side, inside his jacket. If he reached his hand inside his jacket several times, and given the context of his yelling "shoot me", law enforcement (I'm pretty certain on this) is TRAINED to engage/take out the threat. They are not required to wait until a gun is pointed at them.
Thus Law Enforcement in the USA is TRAINED to do this.
Take issue w/ the training, but watch out (for your own soul!) when you accuse those of following through on their training and following the established ROE (rules for engagement) of "murder". This is what the hippies did to our Soldiers and Marines after Vietnam. It's what the Musloids say about the US Armed Forces today. Don't demonize the police, please... It is of course 'possible' that the officer was trigger happy and fired too soon, but when in doubt, we do have an obligation to side with Law Enforcement first. We cannot bully them into hesitating to pull their weapons. If we have issue w/ the ROEs, then we need to take issue w/ the ROEs, not the officers who do their job as they're trained to.
It is a pity, a shameful waste, that Mr. Finicum, who had a beautiful demeanor and, IMO, a just cause (though imprudently expressed) against Fed overreach, was killed in this way.
May GOD have mercy upon his soul, and give us a leader who will beat back the Federal Government.

Anonymous said...

This is very disturbing. Very disturbing. My prayers are with his family and for his eternal rest.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Dear New Sister --

Thank you for your concern for my soul. I'd appreciate your prayers. I have a brother who is a retired Baltimore County Police Office and so I have sympathy with the police as well. But those involved in this event have a lot of explaining to do and my brother would be the first to agree. Although Baltimore County is nearly as violent as the city, my brother never killed anyone in the line of duty, and not because he wasn't in many dangerous situations.

I'm curious what you think about these facts:

Local law enforcement set up the community meeting the protesters were on the way to attend. It was publicly advertised. As far as I know, none of the protesters was charged with a crime or under indictment at that point. The 18-year-old, Victoria Sharp, was going to sing at the meeting. The sheriff wanted to negotiate an end to the standoff. Why did the feds want to prevent these protesters from attending the meeting? Couldn't they achieve what they wanted by preventing them from returning to the refuge? This reminds me of the local sheriff in Waco who said he could go up to the door and talk to David Koresh any time. But the feds stormed in with percussion grenades, etc. So how do you explain this clear provocation?

To shoot at someone at a traffic stop who puts his empty hands and head out the window immediately escalates the situation and makes those targeted fear for their lives wouldn't you agree? How do you explain it?

Even if you can justify the killing of LaVoy Finicum, what is the justification for riddling with bullets a car with passengers, two of them women, who are not shooting at you? How do you explain it?

Why did the officers shoot up the car after the passengers were out if not to cover up evidence of all the shooting they did before? How do you explain it?

Unless you believe the eyewitnesses were all lying, there is a lot that doesn't meet the eye. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to federal agents, but their "rules of engagement" have been used to justify the massacre at Waco and the murders at Ruby Ridge. This is looking a lot like those despicable events.

Not to worry though. The feds have immunity, so no matter what the facts are, they won't be brought to justice. They can depend on federal immunity. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/09/police-shootings-immunity-federal-state-prosecution-supremacy-column/75213044/

Mary said...

Why would the man have carried a gun on his left side when he was said to be left handed?

Anonymous said...

Don't bother trying to convince shills like "New Sister" I knew the excuses were coming the second they started listing off their "credentials" (Which are suspect, anyone who served in the military, let alone a retired officer, would know that there's no such thing as "American ROE." ROE varies wildly from organization to organization let alone theater to theater. I was only in AFG for 7 months and our ROE significantly changed twice in just that short time) Military and Police operate under very different ROE. From my experience in the Marines, I would say that police are the ones with the much more lax rules.

People like "New Sister" don't have any answers to the questions you bring up. That's why they attack from a "moral" standpoint, they don't even bother to acknowledge facts. They hide behind "what ifs" always assuming the worst of the citizen and the best of the LEO no matter what reason or evidence says. Whatever mental gymnastics or double-think they have to swallow, they'll swallow it. They act like even questioning police action once is equivalent to condemning all law enforcement (It's projection, "New Sister" has an Us vs. Them mentality so she projects that upon us.)

I wasn't a drone in AFG, the Feds in this case aren't drones either, doesn't matter what their "ROE" was. For someone who seems to like to invoke God's name in their own personal condemnations you'd think "New Sister" would know that "But..but... my training! Befehl ist Befehl!" isn't an excuse God would accept for violating *his* law.

But God's law isn't what "New Sister" or anyone with her perspective is interested in upholding. They're not interested in really upholding any law for that matter. Jackboots are only ever interested in upholding whatever is best for the Jackboot, full stop.