Finicum Lawsuit

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28458
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#601

Post by bob »

Regardless of whether Cox could/should have been charged with a crime regarding the roadblock, she actually wasn't.

A vicarious-liability theory for Finicum's death wouldn't have to be predicated on Cox's being charged with another crime. But that she wasn't charged with a lesser crime makes it unsurprising that she wasn't charged with a greater crime.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8956
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#602

Post by RVInit »

Jerry Mander wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:31 pm
Photoguy wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:47 am
IMO, the trial would be over within 5 minutes of showing the video.

'You're going to have to shoot me...go ahead, just shoot me.'

Like one of those Perry Mason moments.
What’s weird is that the Bundy cult sees something entirely different in that video. What Lavoy did would get anyone shot by law enforcement (and rightfully so), but the cult sees a parallel narrative that’s contradicted by the video itself.
I showed several people the video taken by the FBI plane, and also the video that combined the FBI video with Shawna's phone video. Every single person who saw that video, including two retired police officer friends, without knowing anything about who they were looking at said they perceived him as reaching for a gun.

The two police officers said they would have possibly pulled the trigger directly after the first or second time he reached instead of waiting for the third time. After more study and more information they agreed they probably would have waited until the third time, when he clearly was turning to directly face a police officer that had holstered his gun in order to take out a stun gun. At that point, he would have been capable of killing a more or less unarmed cop. But they also said most cops they know would have shot him the first time he reached for the gun and not given him and second and third chance, and that he probably only got a second and third chance because of lots of discussion that probably took place ahead of time and the fact that the cops were dealing with a known situation and person.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#603

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

The video should have been (was it?) used in evidence in support of summary judgment. The poots can't raise a question (a "triable issue of fact") through competent evidence that it is not what it appears to be.

These cases should have been resolved a lot more quickly than they were, but after the U.S. Attorney's Office blew all those prosecutions I have no faith in that Office at all.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28458
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#604

Post by bob »

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:23 pm
The video should have been (was it?) used in evidence in support of summary judgment.
IIRC, there are pending motions to dismiss. (Three?; local, state, feds.) It looks like one does request, in the alternative, summary judgment.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Jerry Mander
Posts: 1089
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:06 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#605

Post by Jerry Mander »

Of course, the Bundy cult is spinning the narrative.

Spin spin spin!



User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#606

Post by woodworker »

Re: the other case. I don't recall the name, but IIRC it involved a couple of law enforcement officers coming to serve a warrant on a couple of sovcits, at the sovcit home. The sovcits were made aware that the officers were on their way and instead of waiting in the house hid behind some bushes or boulders and opened fire on the officers before any thing else had happened, a classic ambush. Again, IIRC, the non-shooting sovcit was tried and convicted on felony murder basis. YMMV when depending on my memory. Oh, and it was a west coast case -- I know I have seen it discussed here in the FB,
bring out the tumbrils -- lots of them.

User avatar
poplove
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV
Occupation: Air Force Veteran & Retired DoD civilian.
Contact:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#607

Post by poplove »

Docket updates since the last time I checked:

152
03/06/2020
MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing HELD before Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan. Plaintiffs' supplemental brief regarding FBI and BLM as parties is due by 3/20/2020. Defendants' supplemental brief is due by 3/30/2020. Motions are taken under advisement as of 3/31/2020. J. Morgan Philpot present as counsel for plaintiffs. Leah, Brownlee Taylor, James Smith, Molly Silver present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Jill Jessup. (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 106, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 105, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 107, Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 108.)

153
03/20/2020
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Supp. Briefing. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Philpot, J.)

154
03/23/2020
ORDER: Motion for Extension of Time 153 is GRANTED. Sur-Response is due by 3/27/2020. Sur-Reply is due by 4/6/2020. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan.

155
03/27/2020
Supplemental Brief RE Defendants FBI and BLM. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion[142].) (Philpot, J.)

156
03/30/2020
OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Motion Hearing held on March 6, 2020, before Judge Patricia Sullivan, Court Reporter Jill L. Jessup, telephone number (503)326-8191 or email at jill_jessup@ord.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through the Court Reporter at (503)326-8191 or email at jill_jessup@ord.uscourts.gov or PACER. See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 4/6/2020. Redaction Request due 4/20/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/30/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/29/2020. (jjcr)

157
04/06/2020
Notice re Reply to Motion, [149] Notice of Errata Filed by United States of America. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion, [149].)
1 Attachment Errata A-Wooten Report

158
04/06/2020
Supplemental Supplement Briefing on the FBI and BLM as Non-Viable Parties Pursuant to Court's Order, ECF No. 152, Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the United States Motion to Dismiss. Filed by United States of America. (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, [108].)
1 Attachment March 6, 2020 Finicum Oral Argument Transcript
2 Attachment July 19, 2018 Finicum Transcript of Status Conference Proceedings
Image

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 4248
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#608

Post by scirreeve »

Thanks Poppy!

User avatar
poplove
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV
Occupation: Air Force Veteran & Retired DoD civilian.
Contact:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#609

Post by poplove »

scirreeve wrote:
Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:45 pm
Thanks Poppy!
:thumbs:
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”