Security Detail shows up at Malheur

Status
Not open for further replies.
So how did this thread derail into all this BLM racial stuff?

I asked a question back in this thread why law enforcement tried to stop these people at Malheur in the first place where the first gun shots happened on someone who was supposedly putting both his arms out the passenger side window.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
So how did this thread derail into all this BLM racial stuff?

I asked a question back in this thread why law enforcement tried to stop these people at Malheur in the first place where the first gun shots happened on someone who was supposedly putting both his arms out the passenger side window.


???

Your description of the gun shots doesn't come close to matching the video taken from a drone overhead.

The SUV is being pursued by police, and speeding, then it approaches the roadblock, then brakes heavily, goes for the snow bank on the left, plows past the roadblock and gets stuck.

It's immediately surrounded by officers.

A person exits left rear door of the SUV, starts to run. Stops, puts hands up while surrounded by several cops.

Then he turns, quickly reaches inside his jacket, and is shot.

A good shoot from what is evident on the video.

Reaching for a weapon is the same threat as producing a weapon. If the cops tell you to put your hands up, or to freeze, reaching for a weapon is the most stupid, threatening, escalating thing you can do short of opening fire yourself.

It was the OTHER occupants of the vehicle who had their hands out the window. They were complying with the officers, and more importantly, not making any threatening moves.

They were unharmed.

I have to wonder where you get your facts. They're incomplete and blurred together in this case.
 
^^^ So you believe nothing the woman who was in the truck said in her radio interview (posted earlier in this thread)?

You are saying all the "facts" are shown on drone video. You have better facts than trying to interpret a drone video?

Did you even listen to the interview?

I'll ask the question again:
Why did law enforcement try to stop these people at Malheur in the first place where the first gun shots happened on someone who was supposedly putting both his arms out the passenger side window?
 
Accounts from two women inside the truck. Both stories pretty much correspond with each other.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

I'll ask the question again:
Why did law enforcement try to stop these people at Malheur in the first place


Maybe because they were illegally occupying public/government property?

They wanted to play Johnny Rebel against The Man. Thought that they were in the right and all the local townspeople would see them as saviors. Didn't quite work out that way. No one wanted them or asked for them to be there. They wanted to play militia-man. What other outcome could they have expected? How many of those idiots made, essentially, suicide-bomber goodbye videos on their way or inside the refuge? If that isn't direct insight into what these idiots were thinking and wanting to "accomplish", further debate would be useless.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Do I really need to explain the difference between an assertion and evidence? Go Google it yourself.


Stop. Just stop. You could not cover up the idiocy and ignorance displayed by these stupid, mindless morons if you had a tarp the size of Yankee Stadium. And all of your silly B.S., side stepping and dancing around it won't change any of it.


Turn that coin over and you'll see white people yelling "kill the n****rs". It is shocking what they're chanting. But what actions have they taken? Where are all the dead cops? We should have piles of them by now if you're to be believed. The people that chant this garbage are a tiny fraction of the movement just as the KKK are a tiny fraction of Christianity. If you can't see the fact that unarmed black people are disproportionately affected by institutionalized violence then you're willfully ignorant. In the mean time Alex Jones, Donald Trump, Limbaugh and all the other divisive, hate mongering trolls have a direct line into your brain. Hate is a choice and you appear to chose it regularly.
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
If you can't see the fact that unarmed black people are disproportionately affected by institutionalized violence then you're willfully ignorant.


Really? Are you F'ing kidding me? You really need to take your head out of your a$$ and get a breath of fresh air! Blacks are their own worst enemy. Always have been, and always will be. Every statistic PROVES IT!

"For every black man — criminal or innocent — killed by a cop, 40 black men were murdered by other black men."

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/crime-...killed-by-cops/
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
If you can't see the fact that unarmed black people are disproportionately affected by institutionalized violence then you're willfully ignorant.


Really? Are you F'ing kidding me? You really need to take your head out of your a$$ and get a breath of fresh air! Blacks are their own worst enemy. Always have been, and always will be. Every statistic PROVES IT!

"For every black man — criminal or innocent — killed by a cop, 40 black men were murdered by other black men."

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/crime-...killed-by-cops/



Not kidding. Far fewer white people are subject to stop-and-frisk. Far fewer white people (by population percentage) are in prison. That's structural violence against minorities.

Say your family is in a feud with another. A Hatfields and McCoys type situation. That's a problem, no question. That your uncle Hatfield was unarmed, stopped because his vehicle had a "broken tail light" and died at the hands of the police is another problem all together. Black Lives Matter is addressing the second issue.

Can I get some citations for that article? I mean just name one cited study. One. That "news story" doesn't even come close to Wikipedia's standards.

Dr. Johnson exists, but in reading his CV I'm having trouble finding the paper from which the quotes were taken. It's probably not this one! "Johnson, R. R., & Crews, A. D. (2013). My professor is hot! Correlates of Ratemyprofessors.com ratings for criminal justice and criminology faculty members. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 639-656.

Here's his CV. Maybe you can pick out the paper from which the quotes were taken and we can see if some of the articles' claims are accurate. https://www.utoledo.edu/csjhs/criminaljustice/pdfs/Johnson_VITA_Public_2014.pdf
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Far fewer white people are subject to stop-and-frisk. Far fewer white people (by population percentage) are in prison. That's structural violence against minorities.


No. That's because blacks commit a far higher percentage of the crimes. Again, WAKE UP! You're living in a fantasy world, void of any common sense or reasoning. The South Side of Chicago is the murder capitol of the nation because it's populated almost exclusively by blacks. Compton California and Camden New Jersey are slaughterhouses because again, they are populated by blacks. The list goes on and on. Anywhere you have a large population of blacks in an inner city, you have low property values, high crime, runaway gang violence, drugs, and most everything else you can think of that constitutes bad. As I said, blacks have proven time and time again, they are their own worst enemy. You need to put down the crack pipe, and breath in some fresh air!
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

I'll ask the question again:
Why did law enforcement try to stop these people at Malheur in the first place


Maybe because they were illegally occupying public/government property?

They wanted to play Johnny Rebel against The Man. Thought that they were in the right and all the local townspeople would see them as saviors. Didn't quite work out that way. No one wanted them or asked for them to be there. They wanted to play militia-man. What other outcome could they have expected? How many of those idiots made, essentially, suicide-bomber goodbye videos on their way or inside the refuge? If that isn't direct insight into what these idiots were thinking and wanting to "accomplish", further debate would be useless.


Doesn't give "The Man" the right to go over the line with their "law enforcement" tactics. Exactly what laws were they breaking? If they were breaking so many laws, why did this go on as long as it did?

"Law enforcement" were obvious planning and setting up a situation like this to force the situation to become deadly. The drone video proves nothing, and if you find video that shows time after the driver was killed you will see that the truck was being assaulted as described by the women inside it. And according to them, the shooting started way before the snow bank indecent. If you were being shot at without any provocation on your part, wouldn't you try to get away too? It really was a setup Bonnie & Clyde "ambush scenario".

Some people analyzing the drone video closely say that he might have been shot before he even put his arms down (as the women in the truck both claim) and supposedly reached for a weapon. I guess if I was shot at with my arms up and had a weapon on me, I'd be reaching for it too. Since there is not audio on the drone video, and it's resolution is [censored], then it really proves nothing just yet.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Umm, no. Just no.


Umm, yes. Just yes. Read it and weep:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439

"The analysis:

It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white......Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to be the victims. In 2008 the offending rate for blacks was seven times higher than for whites and the victimisation rate was six times higher. As we found yesterday, 93 per cent of black victims were killed by blacks...... There is evidence in the official police-recorded figures that black Americans are more likely to commit certain types of crime than people of other races.


So.... Blacks comprise only 13% of the population of the United States, but commit over 52% of the murders in this country, and kill a whopping 93% OF ALL BLACK PEOPLE KILLED IN THIS COUNTRY!. You're welcome to do the math.... Assuming you're smart enough. As I say, blacks are their own worst enemy..... Time and time again. That's not "racist". that's FACT!
 
Falling on your sword seems so much more honorable than using another human to kill yourself. RIP
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Doesn't give "The Man" the right to go over the line with their "law enforcement" tactics. Exactly what laws were they breaking? If they were breaking so many laws, why did this go on as long as it did?


Just quit while you are behind. It went on for as long as it did because these "protesters" threatened an armed and deadly conflict if any cops showed up to remove them or arrest them. And since the country has zero tolerance for another Waco or another Ruby Ridge type incident, the Fed's hands are tied. They have modified their tactics, smartly so, to reduce the likelihood of bloodshed. When someone or a group of someones threatens to shoot up agents, you listen to them. You dont just barge in their with a SWAT team and hope for the best. The cops are actual people too, you know. They have families that depend on them and love them, and they just want to go home without getting shot. They also DO NOT want to shoot a bunch of protesters, contrary to your very ill-informed and nonsensical "opinion". So the best option in these cases, as the govt has found, and is doing, is to wait em out, starve em out. No new supplies go in. No food or water goes in. Eventually they will give up. Win win for everyone.


Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
"Law enforcement" were obvious planning and setting up a situation like this to force the situation to become deadly.


Oh you bet your behind they set this up. They planned this operation to a T, the remote location, the armored vehicles, the warrants already signed, the SWAT team there to affect the arrest, a camera drone overhead to record and document the incident, the roads precisely blocked off etc. As with all police operations, they hope and pray for a peaceful resolution. Arrest warrants in hand, they conducted a felony stop and hoped for compliance. Did they get compliance? No, the criminals fled and attempted to escape. And then suicide by cop idiot jumps out and reaches for his pocket despite being ordered to surrender and put his hands up. The dead guy is 1000% responsible for his death, no one else. He knew he would be shot for reaching into his pocket, and he got exactly what he asked for. It was a classic suicide by cop. Everyone else in that truck complied with officers. Lo and behold, they were arrested without incident and not shot to pieces.

Also, those SWAT cops were briefed before that operation. They knew the magnitude of the event. They were also aware that the entire incident would be recorded overhead by a drone. When you tell a cop that everything will be recorded, that the incident will be HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED, they tend to go by the book. They were fully aware that if anyone of them violated the civil rights of the "protesters", or unnecessarily shot them down in a hail of gunfire, they would be arrested and charged by the just-us dept and face a 20-30 year prison sentence. Cops tend not to want to go to prison for 20-30 years. And they tend to follow the law when the whole world is watching and scrutinizing.


Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The drone video proves nothing


Actually it proves quite a bit. And the social justice warriors and BLM activists have been screaming for more body cameras on cops. And when they/you don't like the footage, they change the narrative and facts to fit their agenda. You/me/everyone else can clearly see the criminals fleeing, bailing out of the car, reaching into his pocket. That's as cut and dry a good police shooting as you will find. Period.


Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Some people analyzing the drone video closely say that he might have been shot before he even put his arms down (as the women in the truck both claim) and supposedly reached for a weapon.


Yeah people with an agenda offer 100% reliable, factual testimony, 100% of the time. Sounds legit.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
And since the country has zero tolerance for another Waco or another Ruby Ridge type incident, the Fed's hands are tied.



I thought I'd add that the Feds themselves also have zero tolerance for another Ruby Ridge/Waco incident- and rightfully so. They screwed up really bad at Ruby Ridge. So badly so that it was the focus of a congressional hearing that changed the way they handled those types situations. Not sure if you knew that or not... If you didn't, here is a wiki article on it- Ruby Ridge


And by the way, I pretty much agree with what you said about the stop and resulting shooting. I think part of ZeeOSix's contention as to how things go so sideways is that it is claimed they were fired upon at the FIRST stop while attempting to comply, which is the reason they fled. Not sure that's how it went down, but that's what he's saying.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
And by the way, I pretty much agree with what you said about the stop and resulting shooting. I think part of ZeeOSix's contention as to how things go so sideways is that it is claimed they were fired upon at the FIRST stop while attempting to comply, which is the reason they fled. Not sure that's how it went down, but that's what he's saying.


That is right. If the reports are true that the Feds fired upon them at the first stop without provocation, then I can understand why he took off. Who's going to stick around when someone starts shooting at you for no reason? bubbatime - you have evidence that they were not shot upon at the first stop? Pretty convenient that the drone video didn't have audio or enough resolution to detect gunfire. Then the Feds were waiting at the road block ambush down the road with spike strips and snipers in the woods etc. The Feds set this all up - that's pretty obvious.

And as I mentioned before, the drone video has no audio (so you could hear gun shots) and is pretty low resolution, so it's really hard to see exactly what's going on. Per the witnesses in the truck, he was shot before he supposedly reaching for his weapon. Why the [censored] would be come out of the truck with his arms up and then try to go for a gun when he see's a half dozen guys with guns pointed at him? And then then they unload on the truck with guns and percussion grenades when nobody in the truck is showing any aggressive actions or resistance at all.

It's entirely possible that he was shot before he made any move to grab his gun - the drone video can't determine that one way or the other. Then that made him try to go for his gun to try to defend himself. The Feds played dirty on this one. Wait for time to unfold the facts some more.
 
Watch the drone footage "focus in" when Lavoy walks with his hands up. I have never seen a camera focus like that in all my yrs of photography. Check it out, its not normal. Something has been manipulated on that drone footage...IMO. I would guess that this bizarre looking focus is when Lavoy got shot the first time with his hand up. They edited that out with that focus [censored] at the exact right time. I believe they also did the same thing back when they took that pot shot during the first stop. You see they edited out critical parts with that "focus".

Its important to go back and listen to the hours of recorded testimony by Victoria Sharpe and Shawna Cox. Listen VERY carefully to what they are saying and listen to these recordings more than once! Especially what they say about Mark Mc Connell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top