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

[UKCATS]

@DrPerez007

What in the hell is a “cop killer” bullet.

Sponsored

 

[UKCATS]

The old "Black Talon". ***EDIT*** Rumors said it had a PTFE Teflon coating that would supposedly help it penetrate soft armor. It was bunk....but that never stopped the media from panicking.

More info if anyone cares: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

Ahh, just bs. Like how the new Glock plastic pistols would be able to sneak through airport X-ray machines.

 

[iznthesky]

Would like to know if any legal action was taken against this Jeep guy lol.

Does anyone really think that he stayed there and waited for the cop to return and charge him. The officer didn’t even get his license or anything. Perhaps telling him to “stay right there “ meant that he did not want the Jeep guy to further involve himself in the pursuit.

 

[Capt-Zoom]

Late to the party and prolly mentioned but 1) Obviously the Jeep guy drives around with a loaded gun. 2) Jeep guy couldn't wait to use pistol and took the ooportunity to finally be able to shoot at someone. 3) If the Jeep driver was black he would be covered in holes after doing what this guy did. 4) Ugly rims on the JL!

Assuming a cop is racist and going to fill someone with holes is ridiculous and pretty much the equivalent to racism or worse considering that cops put their lives on the line daily so you and your family can keep yours.

 

[KinderMojo]

So this random "good Samaritan" decides that this guy no longer deserves to live because he bumped his car? Was kinda hoping the jeep owner got shot, or at least a good beat down..

 

[Bilymac]

As a retired LEO, all I can say is WTF was the JL driver thinking? Traffic stops are dangerous enough without some dumba$$ inserting himself into the situation, thinking he'll be of some help. I sure hope the DA comes down like a ton of bricks on his head.

As for the Racists comment from @Jeeptimus Prime.....another WTF?

 

[roaniecowpony]

The entertainment value of YouTube never ceases to amaze me.

 

[DaltonGang]

The driver of the car was apparently involved in a domestic violence incident. The car driver's arrest resulted in charges of multiple crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon.

The citizen was not charged and had a legal carry permit. Maybe the shooter saw a weapon or perhaps had a scanner and knew the car driver was armed. Still put himself in the situation and was not cornered into defending himself.
http://www.cleveland19.com/2019/01/...ng-parma-traffic-stop-security-expert-weighs/

Yes, we do not know what happened before the video started. There is probably a good reason the Jeep driver pulled up. Tactically, poor choice. I've seen trained officers with similarly poor tactics, in the same situation. There is probabbly a good reason he wasnt charged with discharging his firearm at the suspect.

Late to the party and prolly mentioned but 1) Obviously the Jeep guy drives around with a loaded gun. 2) Jeep guy couldn't wait to use pistol and took the ooportunity to finally be able to shoot at someone. 3) If the Jeep driver was black he would be covered in holes after doing what this guy did. 4) Ugly rims on the JL!

Typical liberal, racist, i hate guns attitude. Do us a favor and never buy a gun, then go live in a high crime area. Maybe your asinine attitude will change.

 

[The_Phew]

Taking a one-day class at the local rec center or range (not even that in some states) doesn't magically make someone a super-citizen with flawless judgement. LEOs get hundreds of hours of training, and even they make mistakes all the time.

That said, I'm generally for anything that allows idiots to remove themselves from the gene pool more expediently, and CCWs definitely give idiots more avenues to do so. Just wish they didn't endanger others in the process.

That cop was perfectly justified to dome the JL motorist for discharging a firearm at a (presumably) unarmed fellow citizen, or in his own general direction, or several other reasons. Impressive that he had the composure not to, or we'd have another Darwin Award candidate on video.

 

[Al13]

Thoughts from 28 year retired law enforcement officer. The Jeep driver should have been charged with reckless endangerment for starters. In addition, a charge of armed Moran and sh_t for brains should be added. His insurance will most likely not pay for his damages. The suspect vehicle was probably stolen so no insurance payout from them.

 

[BrntWS6]

Late to the party and prolly mentioned but 1) Obviously the Jeep guy drives around with a loaded gun.

I don't agree with the Jeep driver one bit but guns don't do a whole lot of good unloaded. I carry one in the chamber every day and that's how any good instructor will train you.

CCW holders are also the most law abiding demographic out there, more so than cops.

 

[BillG]

Late to the party and prolly mentioned but 1) Obviously the Jeep guy drives around with a loaded gun. 2) Jeep guy couldn't wait to use pistol and took the ooportunity to finally be able to shoot at someone. 3) If the Jeep driver was black he would be covered in holes after doing what this guy did. 4) Ugly rims on the JL!

Stopped reading at the sixth word.

 

[Shots]

....For the sake of the community, hopefully the prosecutor will revisit possible charges or present to a grand jury (if applicable). ....

I'm hoping for exactly that. Maybe the lack of charges is simply because a case is being prepared for grand jury, rather than charging on the spot. That way a group of random people makes the decision if prosecution is warranted.

B/c I have questions regarding your signature line before I could even begin to discuss the overall scope of law in the first place. If you really want to go down this path, I have to ask for your beliefs regarding the "Blue Lives Matter" movement....and that doesn't even need to be juxtaposed against the "Black Lives Matter" movement (unless you want an even further diversion to the topic at hand...be my guest). My major question is fairly straight forward....what does BlueLM mean to you specifically? Then there's the flawed logic of the "sheepdog" analogy, that probably should be addressed just b/c it's so poorly thought out....

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.

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.

.....I'll try to briefly summarize: I wasn't talking about the JL driver at all. I was referencing why the officer pulled the suspect vehicle over. It's relevant b/c if the officer didn't pull him over in the first place, no altercation would have occurred between the JL driver and the driver of the other vehicle. I have no idea why the driver was pulled over (and freely admit I could be entirely wrong)....but 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". .......

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.
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.

 

[mwilk012]

That cop was perfectly justified to dome the JL motorist for discharging a firearm at a (presumably) unarmed fellow citizen, or in his own general direction, or several other reasons. Impressive that he had the composure not to, or we'd have another Darwin Award candidate on video.

Justified? No, I don’t see the justification. Could he get away with it? Maybe. And the guy in the car wasn’t unarmed anymore than the truck drivers who have been flattening people in France and the UK have been unarmed. The use of a vehicle to assault someone constitutes deadly force.

Also, news reports show that a sawn off shotgun was found “discarded” near the area where this incident occurred and the man was wanted for a domestic dispute involving a gun. So yes, I believe the cop had very good reason to stop him.

 

[Shots]

... And the guy in the car wasn’t unarmed anymore than the truck drivers who have been flattening people in France and the UK have been unarmed. The use of a vehicle to assault someone constitutes deadly force....

Absolutely the car is a deadly weapon, which is why he was charged accordingly. You're not wrong about that. The concept of him being "unarmed" is a matter of the JL owner not seeing a gun to justify his use of deadly force.
Had the car rammed, or attempted to ram, the owner while outside of his JL, then absolutely that's deadly force and shooting at him would be justified. But driving a car from several feet away into a JL is NOT deadly force. You can't generate enough force when stopped from several feet away to kill someone who is in a larger vehicle. Yes it's assault, and yes the car is a deadly weapon, so assault with a deadly weapon applies. However it's not automatically deadly force just because a car (a deadly weapon) was used. Consideration needs to be made as to it's potential to inflict serious physical harm or death under those specific circumstances. I would say the probability of any injury is low, and the risk of serious injury or death is nil. As such, not deadly force.
All that said these are things a judge/jury should decide. If the JL owner were to be charged, he needs to hope they agree with you not me. If they feel it's deadly force he at least has some justification for shooting. Though I would still argue that he put himself in harms way adding culpability to him.

Sponsored