[IowaShooter]

Doesn’t seem to have been handled well by the police or the driver

Utah man shot multiple times by police during traffic stop possibly tied to sovereign citizen movement

The Utah man shot several times by police officers on March 2 is potentially connected to the sovereign citizen movement, described by the FBI as believing they don't need to answer to government authority.

www.foxnews.com

fox news sure likes to quote the FBI… like they are trustworthy…

 

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Complex Institutions (ie. government), is one of the Characteristics of a Civilization. Remove, or defy the authority of that government and you have taken one giant step toward Anarchy. Government is a necessary part of our society. I still believe that we, in the United States, enjoy the greatest level of Freedom that any Nation in History has achieved. But, we still require the rule of law to function in that Freedom.

If a person truly believes in the Sovereign citizen concept, then they have to go someplace that no governmental authority already exists. Then they have to defend that place against those who would subject them to their authority. They would have to be completely and totally alone, otherwise the introduction of even one other person would require rules, division of labor, division of space, etc., or one would have to kill or drive out the other which would, ironically, be the imposition of authority on one or the other by one or the other thus negating the Sovereignty concept....

So, if you are going to buck the system to the point of pulling a gun on the established authority, especially if you are outnumbered, you're likely going to get shot, consequently ending any sovereignty you may have had up to that point...

Alan

 

[IowaShooter]

Complex Institutions (ie. government), is one of the Characteristics of a Civilization. Remove, or defy the authority of that government and you have taken one giant step toward Anarchy. Government is a necessary part of our society. I still believe that we, in the United States, enjoy the greatest level of Freedom that any Nation in History has achieved. But, we still require the rule of law to function in that Freedom.

If a person truly believes in the Sovereign citizen concept, then they have to go someplace that no governmental authority already exists. Then they have to defend that place against those who would subject them to their authority. They would have to be completely and totally alone, otherwise the introduction of even one other person would require rules, division of labor, division of space, etc., or one would have to kill or drive out the other which would, ironically, be the imposition of authority on one or the other by one or the other thus negating the Sovereignty concept....

So, if you are going to buck the system to the point of pulling a gun on the established authority, especially if you are outnumbered, you're likely going to get shot, consequently ending any sovereignty you may have had up to that point...

Alan

True… but not all non-shooting alternatives were used by the LEO IMHO

 

[gvaldeg1]

True… but not all non-shooting alternatives were used by the LEO IMHO

Does he need to refer to a checklist of non-shooting alternatives?

 

[IowaShooter]

Does he need to refer to a checklist of non-shooting alternatives?

of course not…

you either jest or are just trying to be provacative… but I digress…

“After "exhausting" attempts to convince Allan to get out of the car on his own, an officer opened a car door and attempted to physically remove Allan from it, Johnsen said.”

why not just taser the guy?

Having one LEO trying to pull him out if they (officers) knew he was armed was a recipe for disaster

there has got to be a better way than putting the LEO (the officer) at risk

could have easily, and needlessly ended the other way… in an officer death

 

[jmf552]

The cops didn't handle this right and they will probably get away with it. But that guy would not have been shot if he followed police instructions, even if they violated his perceived "rights." I am not going to argue the rights thing one way or another. But if a person is in that situation and has two brain cells to rub together, they have to know not following police instructions is not going to end well. If the cops overreach, that is something to be worked out later by lawyers.

 

[IowaShooter]

The man should have complied… (as we ALL should) always and 100% with LEO instructions … just common sense

all I’m saying is the LEO could have handled it better too… he put himself at risk and didn’t use all available options IMHO

 

[gvaldeg1]

The man should have complied… (as we ALL should) always and 100% with LEO instructions … just common sense

all I’m saying is the LEO could have handled it better too… he put himself at risk and didn’t use all available options IMHO

If you really believe that you're going to be shot, you must react! You don't get a second chance.

 

[IowaShooter]

If you really believe that you're going to be shot, you must react! You don't get a second chance.

Agreed… not arguing LEO shouldn’t have fired if he thought the suspect was going to endanger the LEO’s life

but why one LEO trying to pull an armed man out of car? seems like a strange and risky tactic for the LEO…

could have gone the other way easily

oh well.. we’ll never know

 

[Square target]

Agreed… not arguing LEO shouldn’t have fired if he thought the suspect was going to endanger the LEO’s life

but why one LEO trying to pull an armed man out of car? seems like a strange and risky tactic for the LEO…

could have gone the other way easily

oh well.. we’ll never know

I don't think they knew he was armed until they tried to pull him out of the car. At no point in the video did he say he was armed or did the officer acknowledge he was unless I missed it. It wasn't until they tried to remove him they found out. It's unclear though if he tried to pull it or not from what I can tell. The officer was nothing but polite and gave him many chances and options. The guy who was shot was 100% wrong and he found out the hard way.

 

[Ziggidy]

LEO’s go through allot of crap, more than I think I could tolerate. They have a bulls eye on their back, have to deal with ultra woke (in your face) people who think everyone owes them. They do their job only to have the criminal get early release or just released back into society with a slap on the hand. They put their lives in danger every minute of the day, even off duty.

Some punk comes along and feels he is above the law and in so many words tells them to shove it.

We do not need to retrain LEO’s, we need to retrain society with respect for he law. To the best of my knowledge, there is little (if any) effort to stop the ridiculous movements we have against law and order. BLM, antifa and so many more are running wild in the streets with no end in sight; yet we blame the poor LEO’s. Their hands are tied and yet they are severely reprimanded when crap like this happens.

As I said in another post, yes, we are at war.

 

[Russ D]

why not just taser the guy?

Because many people have heart conditions, myself included.

Tasers aren't the perfect "less than lethal" solution everybody seems to think they are. I, and many like me have better chances surviving being shot.

 

[Stamps6]

Ya know, sometimes the guy who got shot was just asking for it. This is why I’m not a LEO. Just like Indiana Jones where that big guy was swinging his sword and it as just going to be too much trouble to fist fight him.

 

[Macgrumpy]

Most of you guys seem to be jumping to conclusions and allowing your personal feelings to cloud your judgment.

• Nowhere is there proof that the kid pulled or attempted to pull a gun on those cops.
• A gun was found laying on the floor, but none of the officers claim that he pulled the gun or attempted to pull the gun, they just claim that one of the officers saw the holster "flex".

Not cooperating with a cop isn't justification for shooting the person. That is not justifiable use of force. If you approve of cops shooting people simply because they don't cooperate with verbal commands, then you're asking for a real problem.

My gosh, we had nationwide riots because a drug addict physically resisted arrest, stole an officer's taser (classified as a deadly weapon) and tried to shoot an officer with it, and refused to cooperate with verbal commands, so now we are going to shoot somebody who simply didn't cooperate to verbal commands, is this some kind of reverse bias, a black guy gets the cops fired and the whole nation riots while a white guy gets summarily executed and everybody just says that he deserved it.

And what is holster "flex"? What are the odds that the holster flexed due to the cop's wrestling with the suspect? Probably pretty good. Even if the holster did "flex" no gun was drawn (as far as the evidence shows so far) so there is no justification for the cops to fire their weapons, they had every right to draw their weapon and attempt to control the situation, but they had no right to actually fire their weapons.

I'll make a bet that, in the end, these cops will lose their jobs, and they might even serve time for illegally using deadly force.

 

[bc38]

"They believe that the federal government's authority is not legitimate and that the only reason that they have any authority is because people willingly or unwillingly consent to their authority,"
I believe that I can flap my ears a fly to the moon but every time I jump of the roof I get hurt.
Believe what you want but sometimes reality come crashing down.
Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the horns. How long was they supposed to screw around with this jack ass. Maybe they could have got one of those social workers that are supposed to replace law enforcement we keep hearing about to give him a hug. As I read and understand the story after talking with this clown, the cops, determined to physically enforce their commands. Someone saw something (flex holster?) and yelled gun. Game on. The cops have no duty to wait around to be injured first before responding. Now we sit around Monday morning quarterbacking, with all the time in the world to what if, why didn't, when the officers had seconds to react. It could have been avoided by doing what he was told and then fighting about it later. Nope he's in the right and going to play games to prove how right he is. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

 

[IowaShooter]

The cops have no duty to wait around to be injured first before responding.

I believe they act put theirselves and fellow officers at more risk taking the action they did… they were lucky the guy in the cart didn’t shoot one of them

 

[[email protected]]

You can beat this to death and there’s one answer. Do what the cop says. I say 90% of the shootings are because people didn’t do what the cop said. I don’t care what color, age, nationality the person is ……….just do what is asked. Is that really so difficult to do?

 

[IowaShooter]

You can beat this to death and there’s one answer. Do what the cop says. I say 90% of the shootings are because people didn’t do what the cop said. I don’t care what color, age, nationality the person is ……….just do what is asked. Is that really so difficult to do?

Agreed 100%…. that’s what everyone should do every time

however, when a dipstick doesn’t comply… reaching in to ‘drag his ass out when he is armed‘ is a way to put yourself (the LEO] and his colleagues at risk

they are lucky it was the dipstick that was shot and not the officer

I would think there‘s got to be a better way to subdue a non-complaint, armed suspect in a car… so you don’t get yourself shot