Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Finicum Assassination Analysis – New Video

His hands clearly held no weapon.

Finicum Assassination Analysis – New Video

Finicum Assassination Analysis – New Video

Editor’s Note:  Originally published on October 8, 2018, we are reposting this on the 3rd anniversary of his death.

by Elias Alias

We are deeply grateful to Curt Kruse for first offering the following video for publication.  This makes the fifth deep analysis video of various factors in the wrongful death of LaVoy Finicum, who was murdered by the Oregon State Police with assistance by the FBI in Oregon in January 2016.

In this video Curt Kruse looks into the fact that LaVoy was murdered while both his hands were in the air in gesture of compliance and surrender. His hands clearly held no weapon. Curt Kruse felt that this video was necessary in light of the fact that the government continues its attempts to justify murdering LaVoy.

 

 

Here are the four previous videos sent in by Curt Kruse:

The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum _ The Deadly Roadblock **

The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum _ The Foam Bullet

The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum _ The Planted Gun

The Assassination of LaVoy Finicum _ Two Shots The FBI Lied About

Spend some time browsing around the Finicum family’s website. Buy LaVoy’s novel. Make a donation. Spread the word. Share this link. Help this American cowboy family defend their ranch against a vicious government encroachment. Click this link and you’re there. Thank you!

https://www.onecowboystandforfreedom.com/

While you’re there, consider purchasing the DVD which The Mental Militia created for the Finicum family’s fundraising efforts.  That video is a YouTube collage of various videos and includes the first four “forensic” videos by Curt Kruse. That page at their site is HERE.

**Edited, switched to TMM video as YouTube and other sites are having issues with this video.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

13 Comments on Finicum Assassination Analysis – New Video

  1. It looks like the shot was meant to make it appear as though he was getting ready to draw a weapon! Thereby, justifying the shooting.

    • “I still wonder why the video suddenly went blurry as soon as LaVoy stopped the truck. Anyone? …Mueller?”

      Would it be proper to form a voluntary mutual defense association that has one purpose, andn that purpose is to find the truth in matters that matter?

  2. Lavoy’s hands were not in the air when the 3 shots were fired.into his back. At the time those shots were fired, his hands were reaching into his jacket while he was facing the officer who only had his taser drawn He should have stopped at the roadblock and stayed in the truck.

    • In the context of true law power, which is the verdict of the country through their representatives known as jurors, those deliberations leading to that unanimous verdict would include such things as the opinion (stated as fact) offered by Mike Gay.

      I wonder if Mike Gay would defend his opinion if he was a jury on such a case as this Lavoy Finicum murder.

      If every member of the jury agrees with Mike Gay, concerning what Lavoy should have done, then that jury fails to represent the whole country, in my opinion. I know that if I am on a jury to render a verdict in this murder case, then my opinion would be that Lavoy ought to have taken the advice to travel to the safe county the day before, so as to avoid that ambush. The murderers are guilty of murdering Lavoy Finicum, that is as plain as it is wrong to use a badge to cover-up murder, or use a public access information outlet to help cover-up murder by people with fake badges.

      • “I wonder if Mike Gay would defend his opinion if he was a jury on such a case as this Lavoy Finicum murder.”
        Joe Kelly, I’ll be glad to defend my opinion, and expound on it. Lavoy should had not fled the first stop. Leaving that stop was a Class C Felony in Oregon. He was evading arrest. Then when he came up on the roadblock, he should have stopped and surrendered. Trying to go around the roadblock was another act of attempting to evade arrest.

        Although I grew up getting out of the vehicle when I was stopped, I’ve since learned that we are supposed to remain in our vehicle until given instructions by an officer. At the first stop, Lavoy was given instructions to run off his vehicle, etc. He refused to follow those instructions, so a less-lethal warning shot was fired. Ryan Pyne siad, “They mean business” and got out if the truck and surrendered.

        Tell me, how many times have you fled officers from a traffic stop?

        • My name is spelled, Kelley.

          Question:

          “Tell me, how many times have you fled officers from a traffic stop?”

          That question does not apply. I will proceed as if deliberating as a juror in a lawful jury trial where the accused “officer” who murdered Lavoy Finicum is on trial for that murder, and even more importantly, I will proceed as if those who paid the murderers to murder Lavoy Finicum are on trial for conspiracy murder, and on trial for treason since those “officers” would be guilty of treason for using their “license” afforded to them for the purpose of protecting the innocent from the guilty, to murder the innocent instead.

          I have never faced a murderous “officer” intending to murder me, and so I have no experience in the situation faced by Lavoy Finicum as he faced numerous murderous “officers” intending to murder him. If you, as a juror (again me pretending that law could exist in America), wish to ignore the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that these murderers murder Lavoy Finicum, then in my opinion you aid, abet, lend support to those murderers, you do so by your willful ignorance as a member of a lawful society whereby it is your duty to defend the innocent from the guilty in time and place with or without the license to try the case as a juror.

          As you help cover-up this murder, with demonstrable ignorance, or willful deception, the fact remains that you aid, abet, and support by your willful ignorance, or your willful deception, those murders perpetrated by those murderers.

          That is my viewpoint, based upon available evidence, which includes recorded confessions of malice aforethought to murder Lavoy Finicum. If anyone cares to look into some of the evidence, they can.

          https://www.facebook.com/mllpodcast/videos/263894004282166/UzpfSTE2MjE1NTY1MTQ6MTAyMTY0NzYxODY4OTAxNTI/

          1 hour into that interview there is a reference to a radio transmission that is not front page news. If it is not “information” from “Major Media,” it does not exist, to some. That willful ignorance affords all those people their “plausible deniability” concerning their duty as free people in perilously perishable liberty. If you are not told to do your duty, you won’t, and that is what Germans were blamed for, during the murderous Nazi regime, and that is what the Russians, at least Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, confesses during the murderous Bolshevik regime: failure to respond in defense of the innocent against the aggressive guilty criminals in fake government.

          The following applies to all willfully ignorant aiders and abettors of those murderous criminals infesting government:

          “Q. Let me ask you finally — this has
          been a long road — how you regard — what is
          your explanation for the fact that there has
          been such little national media coverage of
          these — of this trial and this evidence and
          this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
          which is the first trial ever to be able to
          produce evidence on this assassination —
          what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
          is not sounding but is in fact totally
          silent — almost totally silent?

          “A. Oh, but — as we know, silence can be
          deafening. Disinformation is not only
          getting certain things to appear in print,
          it’s also getting certain things not to
          appear in print. I mean, the first — the
          first thing I would say as a way of
          explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
          of disinformation over a long period of time
          that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
          official line has been that James Earl Ray
          killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
          by himself. That’s 30 years, not — nothing
          like the short period when the line was that
          the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
          30 years it’s James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
          did it all by himself.

          “And when that is imprinted in the
          minds of the general public for 30 years, if
          somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
          did it. Ray didn’t do it, I did it. Here’s
          a movie. Here’s a video showing me do it. 99
          percent of the people wouldn’t believe him
          because it just — it just wouldn’t click in
          the mind. It would just go right to — it
          couldn’t be. It’s just a powerful
          psychological effect over 30 years of
          disinformation that’s been imprinted on the
          brains of the — the public. Something to
          the country couldn’t — couldn’t be.”

          If you are not told to help preserve liberty, but you are told to pay up and shut up, then you obey, blindly, and without question. That type of blind obedience to falsehood without question, in my opinion, disqualifies you as a juror on a lawful trial, just as it disqualifies fellow conspiracy murderers during a conspiracy murder trial.

          So, in a return question, a valid question, what is the pay-off you seek when you decide to help cover-up or rationalize this specific murder? I’ve been on a jury, and this is the type of question you would face, not just from me, but for anyone exercising their moral conscience.

          • “My name is spelled, Kelley.”

            I apologize for my typo!

            “I will proceed as if deliberating as a juror in a lawful jury trial where the accused “officer” who murdered Lavoy Finicum is on trial for that murder, and even more importantly, I will proceed as if those who paid the murderers to murder Lavoy Finicum are on trial for conspiracy murder, and on trial for treason since those “officers” would be guilty of treason for using their “license” afforded to them for the purpose of protecting the innocent from the guilty, to murder the innocent instead.”

            Well, we might be in agreement here. If I served on such a jury, I would examine the evidence presented in a non-partial manner. However, I have seen no evidence of murder. I have seen many folks speculating that it was murder, but no compelling evidence to support that.

            The evidence I’ve seen shows an attempt to place all the occupants of the two vehicles under arrest without bloodshed. Unfortunately, Lavoy was belligerent, refused to cooperate, and fled from the scene. Then, he attempted to go around a roadblock, refused again to follow orders, and, finally began reaching into his jacket where he was known to carry a semi-automatic handgun. You don’t do that unless you’re trying to get shot!

            “If you, as a juror…. wish to ignore the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that these murderers murder Lavoy Finicum, then in my opinion you aid, abet, lend support to those murderers, you do so by your willful ignorance as a member of a lawful society whereby it is your duty to defend the innocent from the guilty in time and place with or without the license to try the case as a juror.”

            So far, I have not seen evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Lavoy was murdered, and I’ve been examining the facts for almost 3 years.

            “That is my viewpoint, based upon available evidence, which includes recorded confessions of malice aforethought to murder Lavoy Finicum. If anyone cares to look into some of the evidence, they can.”

            Then show us the evidence, OK? Here are some facts around the case:
            1. Lavoy was ordered to turn off his vehicle. He refused.
            2. He fled a lawful stop, a Class C Felony in Oregon.
            3. So what that he claimed to be going to a “meeting with the sheriff.” It was a public meeting with a few hundred innocent people there, The Sheriif there had no jurisdiction in Harney County where the arrests were made, and he had noy power to stop an arrest by Federal agents.
            4. Lavoy had plenty of room to stop before the roadblock and surrender. He made a different choice and decided to attempt to go around the roadblock, and got stuck in the snow.
            5. Then, he got out of his vehicle, belligerently daring them to shoot him. When he reached into his jacket for the 3rd time, he was facing an officer who only had his taser drawn. Two other officers shot him in the back to defend the taser officer.

            All your other malarkey is nothing but speculation, sir.

  3. I am grateful that Redoubt News publishes materials regarding the assassination of LaVoy Finicum. I would like to add yet more new videos which have been posted after the above video was made. Here is a listing of eight consecutive videos produced by Curt Kruse.
    1 — The Deadly Roadblock — https://youtu.be/0fpO6Oh0r2U
    2 — The Foam Bullet — https://youtu.be/IWW_ksD36rk
    3 — The Planted Gun — https://youtu.be/FELmazWL4to
    4 — Two Shots The FBI Lied About — https://youtu.be/6dkiPcjY6K4
    5 — Shot With His Hands In The Air — https://youtu.be/Aa-nyebb-5Y
    6 — Courage In The Line of Fire — https://youtu.be/f80m_w5_CC0
    7 — The Five Minutes of Shooting — https://youtu.be/2pKU-GqlnMg
    8 — LaVoy Finicum The First Shot — https://youtu.be/IB5Nc7eGfk0

    Salute!
    Elias Alias

  4. Mike Gay wrote:
    “However, I have seen no evidence of murder.”

    You don’t have to, and that is fine. If there was law in America there would be honest people assembled in a Grand Jury. The most honest and discrete among the people of the county in which the murder took place would constitute a lawful, independent, Grand Jury. Those people, having all jurisdiction civil and criminal, would subpoena witnesses, question the accused, and present their findings so as to begin trying the case lawfully. The trial jurors find the facts that matter in the case during a jury trial, which is a trial by the country. That is what would happen if the law was in force in America. That the law is not in force in America is the point.

    Helping to cover up a murder is unlawful at base principles.

    Again pretending: The Grand Jury in the county assemble… These people constitute an independent group of regular people, meaning that these are not people on the public dole, people not paid to be the so-called government, with uniforms, badges, and licenses to kill indiscriminately, instead these are representatives of the most discrete and honest people in that county, and they assemble to find out if there is probable cause to try a conspiracy murder case. If there is probable cause, then the accused is put on trial.

    If you and I were on the Grand Jury, in this case, then it would be our specified duty to find evidence of murder if that evidence exists. Our duty would not be to make sure that we find no evidence, even if it exists. And that lawful work is merely to establish probable cause to try the case, so the evidence is not yet deemed factual, because that judgment of fact is the duty of the trial jury, in a trial by the country, not a trial by the government.

    “However, I have seen no evidence of murder.”

    Pretending again. In this case, suppose I went out and found the interview posted in my last comment, as a Grand Juror, and you did not find that interview, but that interview is placed before you, as we 2 are members of that Grand Jury, where it is our duty to ensure that conspiracy murderers are not running amok in our county murdering innocent people. We don’t try the case, we merely look for, and hopefully find, probable cause to try the case, if there is probable cause to try the case. We don’t make sure that we don’t find any evidence, because are duty is to find evidence, our duty is not to make sure we never find any evidence.

    If I start out with a predetermined verdict before looking at any evidence, then I’m not honest, and therefore I would be a poor example, and I would not represent the people in that county. That applies to everyone else in any position of true law. But on the Grand Jury, as I pretend it could exist, the pretense is that my mind was open until I found that evidence offered in the last comment.

    Radio Transmission: “We need to kill Lavoy Finicum.”

    I then work to convince you, and anyone else on the Grand Jury to put the accused, recorded on that radio transmission (if it exists) on trial. I do that based upon that testimony alone. That is because I’m pretending law exists in America, as I have not actually verified the existence of that radio transmission between officer 1 and officer 2 during the murder. That radio transmission may or may not actually be already one piece of inculpatory evidence available to the public, because we need to know, or to any accuser or defendant, and anyone else lawfully capable of trying that case, in an actual court of law.

    If you wish to ignore that evidence as you comment on a public web page, that is fine. If you continue to make claims as if there was no murder, then, in my opinion, you aid and abet the murderers.

    “All your other malarkey is nothing but speculation, sir.”

    https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/9870-2/

    “Greg and Stewart discuss how this barricade/roadblock was placed after a curve, which did not afford Lavoy ample time to see the barricade and stop his vehicle. Greg also covers exactly why barricading/use of roadblocks is considered deadly force and inherently dangerous and life-threatening, and why most jurisdictions in the United States considers them antiquated, and have gotten away from using them.”

    The use of deadly force, the license to kill, is lawful for anyone, anywhere, anytime, when facing imminent danger, who could argue otherwise, other than someone intent upon killing the innocent, after disarming the innocent?

    The point here is that there is a process by which the truth is found in this or any case, but that is not happening, instead, malarkey is the point, so at to cover-up the murder, and afford the murderers their license to murder at the expense of their victims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*