Jeep owner uses JL to assist police pursuit, draws gun and fires

[Shots]

To elaborate on deadly force a bit. A rifle is easily accepted as a deadly weapon. However if it's incapable of firing a round (no firing pin for example) is it still a deadly weapon? Is it not just an expensive paper weight then? We need to consider it's ability to inflict serious physical harm or death. Just because it can be a deadly weapon doesn't mean it automatically is.

Sponsored

 

[Bilymac]

To elaborate on deadly force a bit. A rifle is easily accepted as a deadly weapon. However if it's incapable of firing a round (no firing pin for example) is it still a deadly weapon? Is it not just an expensive paper weight then? We need to consider it's ability to inflict serious physical harm or death. Just because it can be a deadly weapon doesn't mean it automatically is.

If somebody pointed a rifle at you, wouldn't you consider your life in danger? Of course you would, without prior knowledge, you would assume a firing pin was installed.

I guarantee you, every LEO, Judge, member of a Jury, and 99% of the population who have brain cells, would too.

 

[Sean K.]

Well, I never said anything about Blue lives matters, or Black lives matters. ALL lives matter. I don't care about race, gender, religion, profession or anything else. A life is a life, and all life is precious. So I guess that's what it means to me specifically. It's just another random "movement" that I don't pay attention to.
My signature has nothing to do with either "movement". The "thin blue line" has been around for years. Way before the public knew what it was, and way before anyone was calling it a "movement". It actually kinda sucks that people know what it is when they see it now. It used to be kind of a nod to each other when we saw it. The thin blue line is simply a representation of a very small line of blue (cops) separating two groups of pubic. One group being the law abiding citizens, and the other group being those who would do them harm. Or as my sig pic shows "order" and "chaos" separated by a line of blue. When you look at the overall population there are far more non-police than there are police. Ergo the line is thin.

Will I defend that line? Absolutely, and as the sig pic notes, I will never apologize for defending it. I don't expect everyone to understand it, or even accept it. They're entitled to their opinion about police. If someone wants to hate police, that's fine, that's their right to do so. I don't expect them to apologize for hating police, but likewise I will not apologize for supporting my brothers/sisters, because that's my right to do so as well. Anyone who puts on that uniform, and does the right thing, has my support plain and simple. If they put on the uniform to do illicit/harmful things then they're not a representation of the blue line. They're part of the predatory people, who are simply using the uniform as a disguise, and no officer is going to support them.

I'm glad to hear you state all of the above for the record. The problem with BOTH BLMs is the premise that only those groups matter, when in fact (and as you stated)....ALL lives matter. In America, we are all supposed to be equal under the law and while myriad examples prove the contrary...we should still strive towards that goal.

As for the sheepdog analogy? You need to address that with Lieutenant Colenel Grossman who came up with it. I've heard others disagree with it, but it sure seems to fit to me. A group of animals who flock together are protected by the sheepdog [the public protected by an officer]. The sheepdog lives among the flock, but isn't fully accepted because it is capable of violence and looks a bit like the wolf [people know police are just people, but we aren't fully accepted or understood / this topic being case in point]. When the wolf arrives the entire flock tries to hid behind that 1 lonely sheepdog [I've had this quite literally happen where a group of people are hiding behind me for protection]. That sheepdog will defend the flock from the wolf even if it means sacrificing it's life to defend the flock [an officer will fight, and/or potentially die defending the public who in some cases hates them]. Sounds fitting to me. Of course that's just my opinion, and obviously that of LTC Grossman. Ultimately though, who really cares if someone else thinks it fits or not? It's not an indication of superiority or that thinking the analogy fits makes someone any better than anyone else. It's an analogy, nothing more. Maybe you would feel better if police used a scarecrow analogy instead? We protect the field of corn from the crows. Doesn't seem to fit as well, since the corn doesn't have an opinion on our presence, and the scarecrow can't really fight back. But hey just because I don't think a scarecrow analogy fits doesn't mean someone else doesn't see it as ideal.

The sheepdog works for the rancher. The rancher plans to shear the sheep for profit and kill and consume them for sustenance. See why that might not be the "heroic" viewpoint folks like LTC Grossman **EDIT** Though Grossman is a different case altogether as his analogy is one of military function, not law enforcement on the US civilian population** and those who've adopted the analogy might have envisioned? The parallels between the sheepdog/rancher and policing for profit, civil forfeiture, RICO statutes, the failed War on Drugs, militarization of police, recidivism rates, 2 separate systems of justice, as well as overreaching government are disconcerting to say the least.

That's what I though you were saying. Just to clarify, you're proposing that the officer had no legal reason to stop the car?
I'd wager based on probabilities alone that it wasn't b/c the officer witnessed or had reason to believe the driver had "infringed upon another's natural rights"
So you're saying the office didn't witness, or have reason to believe, the car had done anything worth being pulled over for? Interesting.

I was proposing that *might be* the case...though I wouldn't word it as "no legal reason"....as the law currently backs behavior that is the antithesis of "no victim, no crime". As I said in my first response to the thread...didn't watch the video and I've done zero research on this stop. It would seem the car was stopped b/c the driver was involved in an armed domestic (from what the other person just posted to the thread). That changes things completely. I was referring to a hypothetical instance of a person pulled over for something that didn't actually infringe upon anyone's natural rights....as is more often than not the case with traffic stops.

So then what exactly was the JL doing? He tried to block the car in. Isn't he then doing exactly what you're accusing the officer of doing? If the officer can't legally stop the car, then the private citizen certainly can't stop it.

I'd agree that the JL driver was doing exactly that....but my comment was in response to RubiJR's write up about "respect"...which I largely agreed with. I honestly don't have much to say about the JL driver, nor this officer in particular. It's obvious the JL driver is a moron and overall, my commentary has been about how far our justice system has strayed from the original intent of the founders than this particular incident.

 

[Shots]

If somebody pointed a rifle at you, wouldn't you consider your life in danger? Of course you would, without prior knowledge, you would assume a firing pin was installed.

I guarantee you, every LEO, Judge, member of a Jury, and 99% of the population who have brain cells, would too.

Of course I would, and I like that you mention other peoples' similar views. Looking at this video, how many people have agreed that the JL owner was wrong? Reasonableness comes into play when use of force is concerned. It's reasonable to assume a rifle pointed at you can kill you. It's also reasonable to assume that your life is not endangered by a car accelerating toward your Jeep from several feet away. I'm suggesting it's unreasonable to believe he legitimately feared for his life as he's shooting at the car that is driving PAST him. The car, although a deadly weapon, does not automatically constitute deadly force. That same LEO, Judge and member of the jury would likely agree that even though a car can be a deadly weapon, there was no deadly force when the JL owner started to shoot.

I'm glad to hear you state all of the above for the record. The problem with BOTH BLMs is the premise that only those groups matter, when in fact (and as you stated)....ALL lives matter. In America, we are all supposed to be equal under the law and while myriad examples prove the contrary...we should still strive towards that goal.....

And I hope that by having conversations, and actually LISTENING to each other we can reach that goal. There's no place in this world for the us versus them mentality. I don't care what side of the political isle someone falls on, or what demographic they're in, or anything else. We're all here on this rock together and none of us are that much different than the other. If we make an effort to understand each other, we can respect each other. Dang if that didn't just come full circle. But seriously, I really think we just need to talk to each other. I spend a lot of time outside of my car talking to people, building bonds. It's a small thing, but just like AA says, one step at a time.

.....The sheepdog works for the rancher. The rancher plans to shear the sheep for profit and kill and consume them for sustenance. See why that might not be the "heroic" viewpoint folks like LTC Grossman and those who've adopted the analogy might have envisioned? ......

Okay, I can see that. If you look at the sheepdog as a tool for the rancher sure. Although I guess in a way, we really are the sheepdog. The sheepdog doesn't see himself as a tool for the rancher, he's just protecting the flock. I don't think most LEO's view themselves as tools for "big brother", they're just protecting their community.
I can appreciate your view of the analogy, and respect your take on it. I'll still keep in the signature though, because for me it's not the grander scheme of the rancher. I don't intend it as a "heroic" viewpoint or anything like that. For me it's more a way of saying "hey I understand that the public may not like us much, but I'm here when you need me". It's not a perfect analogy but it works. After all, there's no way the sheep could ever over through the rancher, but just ask England what happens when the government overreaches too far.

 

[chcg12]

I am hesitant to comment at all as I know the written word can often not adequately convey one's true meaning. I am active law enforcement (20 + years) in a major city and we have buried 4(four) hero policeman this year alone. Yes, all lives matter. BLM has publicly called for violence against the police! I do realize Not all BLM members feel this way. However, the rhetoric against the police in general is sickening. Wake up!
Regarding this incident the Jeep driver was reckless, pure and simple. Appreciate citizens help, but this was not a smart move to shoot. I am 100 % for concealed, licensed carry with proper training. People kill people, not guns. The sheepdog comments.. I have heard Col Grossman speak..excellent. Please realize the average policeman isn't part of some government conspiracy and doesn't support over-reaching government in the least. 99% percent of policeman serve with dignity and respect. There are good guys and bad guys,period! Skin color is irrelevant! Treat everyone fairly. Be courteous to all, but give respect to those that have earned it. Went on a bit of a rant ..5 Officers were shot in Houston Texas yesterday and this has been on my mind-prayers for them please. Thanks.

 

[Sean K.]

And I hope that by having conversations, and actually LISTENING to each other we can reach that goal. There's no place in this world for the us versus them mentality. I don't care what side of the political isle someone falls on, or what demographic they're in, or anything else. We're all here on this rock together and none of us are that much different than the other. If we make an effort to understand each other, we can respect each other. Dang if that didn't just come full circle. But seriously, I really think we just need to talk to each other. I spend a lot of time outside of my car talking to people, building bonds. It's a small thing, but just like AA says, one step at a time.

Okay, I can see that. If you look at the sheepdog as a tool for the rancher sure. Although I guess in a way, we really are the sheepdog. The sheepdog doesn't see himself as a tool for the rancher, he's just protecting the flock. I don't think most LEO's view themselves as tools for "big brother", they're just protecting their community.
I can appreciate your view of the analogy, and respect your take on it. I'll still keep in the signature though, because for me it's not the grander scheme of the rancher. I don't intend it as a "heroic" viewpoint or anything like that. For me it's more a way of saying "hey I understand that the public may not like us much, but I'm here when you need me". It's not a perfect analogy but it works. After all, there's no way the sheep could ever over through the rancher, but just ask England what happens when the government overreaches too far.

Considering the revenue generated for most municipalities by their police forces, not to mention the history of police forces in the United States, and the multi-jurisdictional collaboration between various LE entities, it's hard to believe any officer wouldn't see himself as part of the machinery of local/state or even federal government, but then again, history and a deep, meaningful understanding of civics, isn't an American strong suit.

I was never deluded enough to believe you'd change your signature (or more importantly your view) b/c of a single discussion on an internet forum (as I mentioned earlier). You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[Sean K.]

I am hesitant to comment at all as I know the written word can often not adequately convey one's true meaning. I am active law enforcement (20 + years) in a major city and we have buried 4(four) hero policeman this year alone. Yes, all lives matter. BLM has publicly called for violence against the police! I do realize Not all BLM members feel this way. However, the rhetoric against the police in general is sickening. Wake up!
Regarding this incident the Jeep driver was reckless, pure and simple. Appreciate citizens help, but this was not a smart move to shoot. I am 100 % for concealed, licensed carry with proper training. People kill people, not guns. The sheepdog comments.. I have heard Col Grossman speak..excellent. Please realize the average policeman isn't part of some government conspiracy and doesn't support over-reaching government in the least. 99% percent of policeman serve with dignity and respect. There are good guys and bad guys,period! Skin color is irrelevant! Treat everyone fairly. Be courteous to all, but give respect to those that have earned it. Went on a bit of a rant ..5 Officers were shot in Houston Texas yesterday and this has been on my mind-prayers for them please. Thanks.

Violent rhetoric is always sickening; regardless of who it is aimed against. Rule of Law is paramount to our system. Without it, people who feel wronged and believe they cannot get true justice within that system will go OUTSIDE of it for relief.

As Frederick Douglass wisely said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Please realize that the average policeman may not believe he's part of government over-reach....all the while enforcing laws that incarcerate around .7% of the population (more than Communist regimes in China and Russia) with 60% of those incarcerated being imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses. In short, police believe they are just "doing their job"....not realizing that what they are ultimately laying claim to is being the "enforcer" for the government's claim to own each of our bodies.

Prayers sent for the Houston officers.

 

[Rahneld]

Not anti-gun but against screwy and overzealous owners: much that I bet I don't know all the facts here. Maybe guy needs to be red flagged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law if available in his State and have better book and scenario training in rules of engagement.

Maybe he thought perp had a weapon (did he?), probably was justified if perp did--probably his heart was pure but could have been split in 2 by officer's bullet if things had gone differently. Was guy in Jeep a cop?

Normally you can't shoot fleeing suspects.

Maybe I shouldn't complain that someone helped a brother in blue.

P.S. Mixed feelings about red flag laws but if in place in State of incident it could be used as a "cool down" period to access if shooter can be more responsible with more training. Don't love punishing people who help cops either.

 

[mwilk012]

Violent rhetoric is always sickening; regardless of who it is aimed against. Rule of Law is paramount to our system. Without it, people who feel wronged and believe they cannot get true justice within that system will go OUTSIDE of it for relief.

As Frederick Douglass wisely said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Please realize that the average policeman may not believe he's part of government over-reach....all the while enforcing laws that incarcerate around 7% of the population (more than Communist regimes in China and Russia) with 60% of those incarcerated being imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses. In short, police believe they are just "doing their job"....not realizing that what they are ultimately laying claim to is being the "enforcer" for the government's claim to own each of our bodies.

Prayers sent for the Houston officers.

Your stats are false, either intentionally so or not I do not know. 0.7% of the population is incarcerated, less than 3 million. How can you sit there and compare that to the Soviet Gulags or the atrocities of Maoist China? The deaths of 100+ million people is not something you can just use a political tool, especially in a LIE.

And "non-violent drug crimes" is a broad stroke to paint. Approximately 70,000 people per year die of drug overdose, and, while I don't have the stats on hand, but a large number of drug possession offenses are plead down from distribution to possession. Violent crime and drug dealing go hand in hand, it is simpler to prosecute drug crime.

 

[DaltonGang]

Violent rhetoric is always sickening; regardless of who it is aimed against. Rule of Law is paramount to our system. Without it, people who feel wronged and believe they cannot get true justice within that system will go OUTSIDE of it for relief.

As Frederick Douglass wisely said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Please realize that the average policeman may not believe he's part of government over-reach....all the while enforcing laws that incarcerate around 7% of the population (more than Communist regimes in China and Russia) with 60% of those incarcerated being imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses. In short, police believe they are just "doing their job"....not realizing that what they are ultimately laying claim to is being the "enforcer" for the government's claim to own each of our bodies.

Prayers sent for the Houston officers.

..

 

[Sean K.]

Not anti-gun but against screwy and overzealous owners: much that I bet I don't know all the facts here. Maybe guy needs to be red flagged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law if available in his State and have better book and scenario training in rules of engagement.

Maybe he thought perp had a weapon (did he?), probably was justified if perp did--probably his heart was pure but could have been split in 2 by officer's bullet if things had gone differently. Was guy in Jeep a cop?

Normally you can't shoot fleeing suspects.

Maybe I shouldn't complain that someone helped a brother in blue.

P.S. Mixed feelings about red flag laws but if in place in State of incident it could be used as a "cool down" period to access if shooter can be more responsible with more training. Don't love punishing people who help cops either.

You have mixed feelings about due process? So-called "Red Flag" laws are unConstitutional by their very nature.

 

[mwilk012]

You have mixed feelings about due process? So-called "Red Flag" laws are unConstitutional by their very nature.

Well there's something we agree on.

 

[Sean K.]

Your stats are false, either intentionally so or not I do not know. 0.7% of the population is incarcerated, less than 3 million. How can you sit there and compare that to the Soviet Gulags or the atrocities of Maoist China? The deaths of 100+ million people is not something you can just use a political tool, especially in a LIE.

And "non-violent drug crimes" is a broad stroke to paint. Approximately 70,000 people per year die of drug overdose, and, while I don't have the stats on hand, but a large number of drug possession offenses are plead down from distribution to possession. Violent crime and drug dealing go hand in hand, it is simpler to prosecute drug crime.

Typo. Apologies. Missed the decimal. And it doesn't change the fact that we have more people per capita imprisoned that those other countries.

Here are links: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

I can make the comparison quite easily...as any rational person can. Mao's dead. And I'm not comparing Stalin/Lenin/Moa's regimes to our own. I'm comparing the incarceration rate per 100K people.

As for drug crimes....simple question: Do you own your body or does the government? Careful. How you answer that question has all sorts of ramifications for your life and the lives of your fellow citizens.

 

[Sean K.]

..

Feel free to elaborate.

I'd love to know which parts got your thumbs down....the prayers for the officers? Doubtful.

A quote from one of the brightest minds America has ever produced? Naw.

The truth of the US leading incarceration rates in the developed world thereby illustrating the maxim that "no one is more hopelessly enslaved than those that falsely believe they are free"?

That people go outside the law when they can't get justice within it (which is why drug dealers kill each other over turf wars...they certainly can't get redress from the system when one gang encroaches on their territory....as an example)?

Or maybe the thumbs down is just a commentary on how screwed the entire system is based on all of the above (and there are a lot of reasons I haven't even gone into yet).


PS. Fixed the typo of 7% to .7%.

 

[Sean K.]

Well there's something we agree on.

B/c it's important that we agree?

Sponsored