Thursday, February 11, 2016

Police Murder Lavoy Finicum!


*******
*******
Warning: graphic images

FBI releases video footage of LaVoy Finicum shooting
Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum shooting in slow-motion The FBI footage that shows the shooting of Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum prompted further questions about his death. This video shows the moments leading up to and after Finicum's death in slow motion.
*******
F.B.I. and Oregon Police Killed an Innocent Political Dissident
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
February 11, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
As an introduction to my thoughts on Lavoy Finicum's killing in Burns, Oregon, consider my article published in the Flathead Beacon's Two For Thought weekly Opinion section:
The FBI and Oregon police killed a rancher, Lavoy Finicum, last week. Lavoy joined Ammon Bundy, among others, for three weeks in occupying a refuge on public lands in Burns. Like many Americans, the occupiers believed BLM had been long abusing power. Police released one video of the incident (but not other pertinent surveillance). Was this killing lawful?
Under the Fourth Amendment, police who use deadly force have a burden to prove their actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them based on the totality of the circumstances.
Regardless of one’s view of the occupation, the video raises issues regarding police’ actions: (1) Why block the highway in nowhere-ville? (2) Why use snipers and a dozen-plus officers? (3) Why not use spike strips to stop him? (4) When exactly was Lavoy likely to harm police?—when shot, Lavoy was facing no police, could barely walk in deep snow and held no gun. (5) Lavoy had not just committed a dangerous felony and fleeing therefrom. (6) Police had prior opportunities to serve an arrest warrant in a safe manner. (7) Why immediately rush Lavoy and spark conflict rather than contain the area and determine his actions?
The occupiers did not convince the greater part of society to aid them, given their seeming “state of war” approach. Still, if our laws can condemn Lavoy, they can also condemn police.
In fairness, there are some who are not normally forgiving to government abuse but believe police were justified in killing Lavoy: one such notable viewpoint on this incident is my dad, Chuck Baldwin. I, on the other hand, believe the video suggests that police were not justified in killing Lavoy when they did--even assuming he had a pistol inside his jacket and was reaching for it.
After Lavoy's death, his family was able to view his body. They released a press statement that they observed nine (9) bullet inserts in Lavoy's body. Police have yet to release autopsy records or comment on that statement; however, reports record police admitting that Lavoy was shot several times.
For now, assuming Lavoy was shot multiple times, those shots had to occur before the last shot--the kill shot to Lavoy's head, which dropped Lavoy to the snow-covered ground.
Since police did not release any audio or other videos--all of which they possess and could release--of the incident, the public does not know exactly when and how many times police shot Lavoy, with the exception of what appears to be the last shot to Lavoy's head.
Regardless of whether Lavoy was shot 9 (as Lavoy's family states) or a few times (as police state), the video shows that the last shot was the fatal head shot. Thus, the other shots were to his body before Lavoy was shot in the head. Of course, all of these shots had to happen within seconds after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up.
If Lavoy was shot more than once in his body before the last shot to his head, this supports the argument that quickly after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up (signaling his surrender) police shot him in his body. This would have caused Lavoy to drop his hands where he was shot.
Since Lavoy dropped his hands to his body and statements from both Lavoy's family and police state that Lavoy was shot several times in his body, one must assume that Lavoy dropped his hands and placed them on his body where he was shot. Ironically, Lavoy's dropping his hands in this manner was the alleged justification for killing Lavoy.
Did police create the "justification" of killing Lavoy by shooting him in his body, which caused him to drop his hands?
Still, assuming police did not shoot Lavoy in his body before they shot him in his head (which means they shot him while he was dead on the ground--why would they do that?) and assuming Lavoy was reaching for a pistol inside his jacket or pocket (which is it?), the video reveals that the police who rushed out of the woods and charged Lavoy killed him prematurely.
The video shows two police charging Lavoy (one from the bottom and one from the top of the video) immediately after Lavoy exited his truck. This rush approach was not only unnecessary, but also needlessly provocative under these circumstances.
In a real sense, police created the exigency needed to kill Lavoy for "officer safety", similar to police creating the exigency of completely blocking the road in what appears to be a location that gave Lavoy very little time to slow down or stop his truck. (One would need to study Oregon's and federal laws of when and how road blocks are to be conducted: there are limits by law. See e.g. State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Ore. 131, 134, 743 P.2d 711, 712 (Or. 1987) (ruling road block was unconstitutional); see also Nelson v. Lane County, 304 Ore. 97, 125, 743 P.2d 692, 70 (Or. 1987) (discussion of constitutionality of road blocks).
This is clear from the video: police did not give Lavoy a reasonable opportunity to surrender and enough time to assess the danger level. Instead of the heavy force of police maintaining their positions behind cover until such time as Lavoy clearly demonstrated his intent, police--who appeared little concerned about containing the safety of everyone and use as little force as necessary--immediately charged Lavoy and quickly shot him.
But here are the factors that essentially demonstrate that police killed Lavoy unjustifiably.
During the short and quick period of time that the two aforementioned police rushed him, Lavoy (1) could hardly keep his footing in the deep snow, (2) had no gun in his hand, (3) had no meaningful opportunity to draw a pistol inside his clothing quickly enough to take accurate aim and shoot any nearby police, and (4) was not even facing the two nearest police (who charged him) when he was shot in the head and killed. The totality of these circumstances supports the conclusion that he was killed prematurely, or at a minimum, calls into question the police' claim of justification.
Assuming Lavoy would have pulled a gun at any time and posed a legitimate threat to a police officer, there were dozens of police ready and able to kill or disable Lavoy. This reality is what makes the actions of the two police who charged Lavoy appear so unnecessary, excessive and provocative. One must wonder how much training and experience the police had (especially who shot Lavoy) for these situations; what kind of briefing took place before the incident; and whether the rush tactic at a road block was preplanned or orchestrated.
Admittedly, more facts are needed to form a solid opinion here.
The government has a heavy burden of proof of justifying their killing of Lavoy. The released video and summary statement by police that since Lavoy was "going for a gun" police were justified in killing him do not meet that heavy burden: the totality of the circumstances simply does not appear to justify their killing Lavoy.
Police should release (as they should in time with demands from the Finnicum family attorneys) all of the evidence relative to the question, including:
• use of force reports
• incident reports
• police training manuals and certifications
• applicable warrants or court orders and affidavits in support
• written and recorded witness statements
• photos of entire scene and Lavoy's body
• in-car video surveillance of all vehicles and drones
• police body-cameras of all officers
• police policy and procedures (state and federal) for use of deadly force
• briefing memorandums
• dispatch records
• road block planning memorandums
• officer duty and task assignments
• autopsy report
• ballistic reports
One interested in justice would hope that the government does not withhold, destroy, lose or fabricate the evidence. Whether you agree with Lavoy and the Oregon occupiers or not, the government must follow the law. Accepting any other standard places all political dissidents and protestors in the government's absolute wrath and arbitrary use of deadly force. Liberty cannot survive in that environment.
Lastly, there are federal laws in effect to detain and prosecute "enemy combatants" and "domestic terrorists" who place themselves in a state of war with the United States. Notably, the federal and state governments did not treat Lavoy and the occupiers under such laws. Rather, they treated them as normal citizens of the United States who were simply breaking the law, such as criminal trespass, intimidation, and impeding an officer's investigation/duty. Therefore, Lavoy and the occupiers deserved the same treatment and respect of the law as you and I.
© 2016 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved.
Timothy Baldwin, born in 1979, is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and formerly Florida) and handles a variety of cases, including constitutional, criminal, and civil. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.
Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns–all of which are available for purchase through libertydefenseleague.com. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.
*******
They lied: Numerous eyewitness accounts prove FBI edited footage of LaVoy Finicum shooting
Multiple eyewitnesses detail key moments not seen in supposed unedited video
By Alex Thomas
February 9, 2016
(INTELLIHUB) — In the weeks since the shooting death of patriot rancher LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and others, numerous eyewitness testimony and independent reporting has completely debunked the notion that the FBI released unedited footage of the now infamous violent confrontation on an Oregon highway.
Amid a massive public outcry throughout social media, the FBI took the extraordinary step of releasing footage of the shooting and arrests just two days after they originally took place. Many saw this as proof that the feds weren’t trying to hide anything and that the killing of Finicum was indeed legal and justified.
While the footage released by the FBI did totally destroy the claim by Mark McConnell that LaVoy had charged at police, it more importantly left out key portions of what actually happened.
In other words, the FBI straight up LIED to every single American by releasing footage they claimed was complete and unedited when we now know that there are key parts, verified by multiple eyewitnesses and independent reporting, that are nowhere to be found in the official video released on the FBI YouTube channel.
*******
Published on Jan 28, 2016
*******
In key interviews done by Victoria Sharp and Shawna Cox, both women describe a point before LaVoy drove away (from what has been described as a hail of bullets) when Ryan Payne actually got out of the vehicle in what is believed to have been an attempt to put himself between the vehicle and the police about to shoot it up.
“Ryan Payne is amazing”
An outstanding report done by Lory Storm for KSDZ FM in Nebraska gets into the probable reasoning for why Victoria described Payne as amazing in the interview above.
“He did stick his hands out of the window, he did wave them, what you can’t see in the video is that the officer shot at him when he did that,” detailed Storm.
“He then got out of the truck fearing for the safety of everyone in there, including the two women, and posted himself in front of the armed men, tried to talk some sense into everyone and calm things down.
LaVoy decided if they were going to be stopped on the road and summarily shot at before they were even requested to get out of the vehicle that they weren’t safe…. and boy did he end up being right,” continued Storm.
For her part, Shawna Cox has done numerous interviews since her release from jail and in many of them she also goes over the moment Payne got out of the vehicle as well as multiple other key periods of time that we do not see in the “unedited” video released by the FBI.
*******

Shawna Cox Interview from 1/31/16 on Revolution Radio
*******
We are currently attempting to put together a full timeline of what eyewitnesses claim actually happened from the time they were originally pulled over up until Finicum was killed and the others arrested.
What we do know now, as Lory Storm so rightfully noted, is the FBI’s claim that this is an unedited video is completely debunked.
*******
Oregon standoff: Militia member loses foster kids, blames ‘pressure from the feds’
19 Jan, 2016
One of the most visible members of the armed militia that took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon says his four foster sons were taken away due to his involvement in the standoff, and he blames the federal government who “must have gotten to the governor.”
Robert “LaVoy” Finicum and his wife Jeanette have fostered more than 50 boys over the last decade at their ranch near Chino Valley, Arizona. The couple is licensed and has a care contract with the Catholic Charities Community Services. Many of the children came from mental hospitals, drug rehabs and group homes for emotionally distressed youth, he told Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB).
“My ranch has been a great tool for these boys,” Finicum said. “It has done a lot of good.”
He traveled to Oregon to take part in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge at the beginning of January, leaving Jeanette to care for the four boys. But now the Finicums have no more fosters to care for.
A social worker began removing the last four of the family’s foster kids on January 4, the fourth day of the Oregon standoff. The last left five days later, he said.
“They didn’t go out at the same time,” Finicum said. “One was there for a year, one of the boys was there six months, another eight months, and a month. I don’t know where they ended up.”
He blamed the kids’ removals on “pressure from the feds.”
“They were ripped from my wife,” Finicum said. “We are very successful [foster parents]. Our track records are good, it’s been a good relationship. [Federal authorities] must have gotten to the governor, who told the state to get them out of there.”
A 2010 tax filing showed that Catholic Charities paid the Finicums $115,343 to foster children in 2009, OPB reported. That year, foster parents in Arizona were compensated between $22.31 and $37.49 per child, per day. If the couple was paid the maximum rate, they would have cared for an average of eight children a day in 2009.
“That was my main source of income,” Finicum said. “My ranch, well, the cows just cover the costs of the ranch. If this means rice and beans for the next few years, so be it. We’re going to stay the course.”
The last year for which Catholic Charities itemized the amount it paid the Finicums is 2009. However, the organization has significantly increased its foster-care payments since that time, according to OPB.
Critics point out, however, that by helping the Bundy brothers take over federal property in Oregon, he could potentially be arrested for committing crimes.
“[H]aving one parent away from the home for a significant period of time committing a number of high profile federal crimes would seem like at least a plausible reason to remove the children,” Josh Marshall wrote for the Talking Points Memo Editor’s Blog. “This doesn't seem to occur to Finicum.”
Another militia member, Blaine Cooper, also said that his children were taken from him in a video posted to Facebook on Saturday. The video was apparently removed later.
Cooper believes the FBI and Child Protective Services “are doing this to draw me out but they will fail horribly,” he wrote in a Facebook comment shared by All Your Based. Are Ours.
Finicum hopes that he will be able to foster again, as his license has not be revoked. However, he said, the couple is no longer receiving referrals to care for children. Finicum believes the loss of his four foster kids was a sacrifice worth making for the cause.
“I hope people are seeing the sacrifices we’re making here,” Finicum said. “I want to show what my government is doing. You need to understand the cost being paid by many people.”
Last week, Finicum and militia leader Ryan Bundy traveled to Utah to meet with county officials in the Beehive State who are reportedly eager to start a similar standoff with federal authorities over public land management, he told OPB.
“We went fast, and came back fast,” said Finicum. “I doubt [law enforcement] even knew we were gone. Probably they did. But they were nice enough to let us go and come back.”
The two returned to the Malheur Refuge by Friday, when Finicum reportedly took down a surveillance camera atop an electric pole that was suspected to be operated by the FBI. The Arizona rancher has served as a spokesman of sorts for the group.
*******
Franklin Graham assists end of Oregon rancher protest
By  A. Dru Kristenev -- Bio and Archives
February 11, 2016
When Occupy Wall Street overran city blocks, trashing private property and
businesses, ravaging women and screaming to obtain government subsidies, authorities turned a blind eye. But when protesters arrived at Malheur Wildlife Refuge January 2, 2016, to focus attention on ranchers jailed as terrorists for protecting their property from Bureau of Land Management mismanagement, media and government treated them as desperados.
The first group destroys private property and tramples individual rights yet is allowed to disperse and go on their merry way continuing to devastate others’ livelihood.
The second group, whittled down to four individuals quietly camped on the grounds of the refuge, attempted to keep a light on government violation of property rights.
Who are the real scofflaws? The OWS, and BlackLivesMatter, who willfully obliterated and looted businesses without consequence? Or the ranchers and their supporters who, threatening no one, moved into an empty building to address government transgression?
If you sided with the freeloading OWS and BLM (this includes both the government agency and the racist movement) destroying property over freedom-loving individuals standing to protect property rights, then our nation has failed.
Our country was founded on the inspired recognition of God-given individual rights, which feudal powers had thwarted for time immemorial. The documents that established the United States of America clearly articulated the nature of these unalienable rights in our person and property. Not two hundred years after the establishment of the nation, those rights had been winnowed to regulated usage of what citizens owned, virtually disenfranchising them of everything from their dogs to their homes, and in this case, the feeding of their cattle to provide meat for all of us.
What 25,000 of us just witnessed live through the internet (and close to 80,000 listened Wednesday night) was the level to which government will stoop to make nonviolent demonstrators fear for their very lives.
FBI’s shooting death of LaVoy Finicum in an ambush setting on a lonely, cell-silent piece of road in Eastern Oregon
On the heels of the FBI’s shooting death of LaVoy Finicum in an ambush setting on a lonely, cell-silent piece of road in Eastern Oregon two weeks ago, four lone protesters continued a vigil on the refuge, hoping their presence would keep the grazing and property rights issue before the public. They had no ill intent toward federal agents nor were they promoting lawlessness, at least not on their part. They were, however, spotlighting the flagrant lawlessness of federal agencies in limiting and revoking grazing rights of ranchers on public lands.
The byword here is “public.” The term was always to be defined as owned by the People of this nation. No longer does it carry that meaning. Instead “public” has been corrupted to mean owned by the government. For those who still believe that the two are interchangeable, a review of what government has become is required – an entity by and for itself, producing nothing but reaping everything – as opposed to its true, initial function, that of serving the People who constituted it.
The four remaining demonstrators, camping in a remote area on the refuge, were surrounded by armed FBI agents Wednesday, February 10, 2016. The siege’s purpose was to arrest these individuals for having used public lands as owners might, being representative of the public, for their gain or enjoyment. They were no threat to society nor had they destroyed public property. What they did do was have the audacity to not just speak up about government mismanagement of public lands, but to have a physical presence to make their point.
They didn’t burn or destroy the premises (which the BLM does on a regular basis, illegally setting backfires, or OWS and the other BLM did in their violent protests), nor did they interfere with any individuals’ rights of travel or property. In fact, it was the inappropriate use of armed officers that closed down the refuge and blocked the roads, creating a hazard.
The climax of this whole, avoidable FBI-induced standoff was the young man, David Fry, who feared the FBI’s lack of integrity, knowing how one forced confrontation had ended with a good man’s death. Anyone listening to the live feed Wednesday evening heard more than one instance where the FBI representative actually lied to the four individuals. Despite this, the first three walked out to authorities this morning after being assured that Rev. Franklin Graham and Michelle Fiore, Nevada assemblywoman, were present and waiting to receive them.
A great deal of prayer and conversation to ease tensions was necessary to convince a reasonably distrustful Fry to vacate the camp, all of which was streamed live by constitutional activist Gavin Seim of Washington. Two hours later, he walked out to join his fellows, closing the 42-day drama but not the ongoing, essential dialogue about government transgressing its power; power limited by the Constitution.
As much as national politics has overshadowed the news cycles with crass language amid candidate exchanges, there is no discussion of greater legitimacy and import than this one of government infringing individual rights. It is inherent in the issues of open borders, unvetted refugee influx, economy-straining regulation and taxation, sale of fetal tissue and body parts, and government funding all of the above. Every one of these concerns is of dire importance to the American people and the candidates must focus on communicating their substantial plans to handle them, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.
Set aside the populist, literal free-for-all, promising everything and delivering nothing but deeper debt and bondage to government. Take note of what just occurred in Eastern Oregon and address what takes real courage – standing for what’s right, not what’s easy.
Former newspaper publisher, A. Dru Kristenev,  grew up in the publishing industry working every angle of a paper, from ad composition and sales, to personnel management, copy writing, and overseeing all editorial content. During her tenure as a news professional, Kristenev traveled internationally as both a representative of the paper and non-profit organizations.
Since 2007, Kristenev has authored four fact-filled political suspense novels, the Baron Series, and two non-fiction books, all available on Amazon.
*******

No comments: