woman bystander shot… They can’t fucking just shoot each other and leave everyone else out of it.
Hopefully it brings consequences. Every time a bullet is fired, it is required (and I guess that must be in quotes for police officers…) that you be responsible for that bullet’s consequences. If you shoot at a legitimate threat, but hit the bystander, you should get charged. Cop, not-cop, firefighter, good samaritan with a gun, whatever. Charge them.
yes, should.
This, however, is America.
Land of the free policeman. Home of the not brave policeman.
Hopefully it brings consequences.
I’m sure it will. The cops will be put on paid leave and then given medals. Something like that. That’s what usually happens when cops kill innocent people.
In many jurisdictions if anyone is hurt related to a crime, the criminal is legally responsible for all damages.
So for a situation like this, the criminal would be responsible for all damages stemming from their initial crime when they chose to run. Any damage in the chase or subsequent actions until they are killed or in custody.
Yes, and that should be the case. However, cops (and everyone for that matter) should be responsible for every shot they fire. They should make sure their background is clear. If some freak accident happens, like a ricochet that shouldn’t be expected, then it should be fine, but they should have to make an attempt to be safe with firearms. You know a civilian would have to.
IDK if it should be the case, because that shit is getting abused to jail people who shouldn’t be jailed.
I haven’t really heard of that being abused. They have easier ways to do that. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s abused, but if you start a car chase you should be responsible for what happens with it, for example. I guess I can see the potential for abuse, but also I think it’s necessary to have.
It’s called “Felony Murder”.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/12/18/felony-murder-laws
It is more likely that she be arrested for obstruction because she intercepted the bullet.
Removed by mod
civilian-level firearms training
You’re implying the cops are getting better training. Hint: they don’t
Lived next door to a cop, and down the street from another while growing up.
My dad, who only went with his father, trained more often and more rigorously then they did. How do I know? Cops talk a lotta shit, and their kids are sick of fascism already. This was only up until like 6th grade even.
Cop down the street was known for beating his wife, and was probably dirty as hell with the drive by attempt. Thankfully none of the kids were hurt. No one else was either, but even then I wouldn’t have shed a tear for a pig.
The only thing that will stop a bad sovereign citizen with a gun is a good sovereign citizen with a gun.
A pity that there are no sovereign citizens that should ever be trusted with anything as dangerous as a pair of arts and crafts scissors for kindergarteners
A man was shot and killed while exchanging gunfire with Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputies following a traffic stop in north Houston Sunday.
He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot, he was shot because he was shooting at police. Why even mention he was a Sovcit idiot? It doesn’t change the story at all.
The site might as well have: “Man with blue pants shot, killed during exchange with Harris County deputies”
FTA:
Deputies conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle with expired tags and a broken taillight on FM 1960. Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen.
Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle, Gonzalez said.
Refusing to comply with their demands, he drove away from the scene and engaged in a brief pursuit with deputies before his vehicle was brought to a stop on the corner of FM 1960 and Ella Boulevard.
After stepping out of his vehicle, the man, armed with a pistol, began shooting at deputies. They exchanged gunfire and the man was shot dead. No deputies were injured during the exchange, Gonzalez said.
Ahem…
He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot…
Oh, yes he was.
…he was shot because he was shooting at police.
His “ideology” dictated a pathology that led to a predictable outcome. The article is a clear and concise description of the standard sovcit idiot playbook, however cops are usually successful in arresting the dopes before it gets shooty. Not always.
An hour of talking to the man. Must been white because a black man would not get this treatment if asked to exit vehicle. Matter of fact they probably wouldn’t have asked.
Either way, refusing to get out of your car when a cop tells you to is never going to end well for the driver, regardless of race. Especially in Texas, and doubly so when you try to take off on them. Cops don’t tend to like people flouting their authority.
IDK some power-tripping assholes will take any excuse to open fire. I can respect people who don’t move at all for their own safety. They’ll be enraged and power-tripping, so likelihood of being dragged out of the car and unconstitutionally beaten is high. But they have fewer excuses to pretend they fear for their lives.
Really cannot drive away, tho.
Sovereign citizen is an extreme delusional fantasy that only the whitest idiots are entitled enough to indulge.
I say we indulge them and take that to its logical conclusion.
Sovereign citizen? Ok so not a citizen of the United States. Do they have a Visa to be in the country? No? Then they’re here illegally and should be deported. Process them like any other illegal immigrant.
In the meantime, we all know they’re actually US citizens, but if they keep claiming they aren’t a citizen then they obviously must have stolen that citizen’s identity. Process it that way.
They’ll very quickly admit they are actually a US citizen, and thus must comply with US laws, when they’re looking at being deported to a country they know nothing about and losing everything they have here for fraud and identity theft.
If they truly believed any of what they utter they would have done the paperwork to relinquish their citizenship.
You know what amazes me, is that there are black sovcits. I saw video one of them shot lately, and honestly I appreciated the cops being as boundedly patient with him as I’ve seen them be with white sovcits, but holy shit I do not get how black people are willing to play that particular game given all of the times the cops have, in very genteel language, failed to uphold professional standards when interacting with someone with more than a minimal amount of melanin.
Really didn’t know that, thought it was white hicks that believed in that crap.
The real lesson we should get out of all of this is that we’re not that much different.
White people should absolutely care about Black Lives Matter, even just for selfish reasons. Because as soon as a cop decides, he will treat you or your kids in the exact same way. They have a predilection to treat black people as inferior, but as soon as you do anything they don’t like you’re in the exact same bucket.
We should all be on the same side, and it’s for some kind of real police accountability.
Black dudes are “Moors”. SovCit for black people. Separate but equal.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/moorish-sovereign-citizens
I misread your post, but the prima facie is that he drew a weapon on law enforcement, that as a result.of being a sovcit idiot.
Chorine in the gene.pool. What a bitch.
deleted by creator
He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot…
Oh, yes he was.
Lots of Sovcit idiots are pulled over and NOT shot.
If a Sovcit is pull over and not shot, and a Sovcit is pulled over and shot, the status of the idiot being Sovcit or not doesn’t make them be shot. Its when the idiot starts shooting at police he’s shot, just like when non-Sovcit idiots shoot at police, they’re shot.
So no, the idiot being sovcit didn’t change the outcome.
Being a sovcit led to the altercation which led to the shooting which led to the death.
Just because not every sovcit gets shot doesn’t mean his being sovcit isn’t relevant. Not everyone who pulls a sword on police gets shot, but pulling a sword on police would be relevant if the person pulling the sword out got shot.
Yeah, but this guy wasn’t “lots of other sovcits”. He was this guy who took it way too far and suffered the consequences of his batshit ideology in a very predictable way. He did not commit his actions in a vacuum— he followed a very specific script of escalation in accordance with sovereign citizen ideology, and that is what is to blame, for it’s that influence which is undoubtedly what led him to this very predictable end.
The article (which I quoted) spells that out very clearly and unambiguously.
he followed a very specific script of escalation in accordance with sovereign citizen ideology, and that is what is to blame, for it’s that influence which is undoubtedly what led him to this very predictable end.
If your statement is true, why don’t all Sovcit idiots engage in gunfire with police, if its prescribed that way in their batshit insane ideology?
This isn’t a conversation about ALL sovcits, just this one and what they did. Besides, since when do adherents to any beliefs system always follow every tenet, or even universally agree on what they even are?
lol, your arguments are fallacious and spurious
Their cowards? Many people talk a great game about their ideology but fail to follow through.
Many(most?) religious texts require stoning people to death for violating certain rules. Just because most don’t, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant if one person does because of that text…
It’s providing the motive.
the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen. Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle.
It’s obviously relevant context. This situation wouldn’t exist if he wasn’t a sovidiot.
Its implying a motive
Why did he open fire on the cops?
Meth? Personal grudge? Former cop whistleblower fighting for his life? Just hates cops and shoots at people all the time? Suicidal? It’s part of the Who What Where Why When formula.
It’s a valid question, and valid to include in the story and, yes, in the headline.
The article says he may have had felony warrants.
Probably not the first time this yoyo thought laws don’t apply to him. Special little snowflake, that one.
The fact that he was a SovCit idiot prompted him to shoot at the cops. It’s relevant background.
Except they dont say “gunfire exchange” so the headline def means to slant towards sovcit being the victim
You have to read more than the headline:
“After stepping out of his vehicle, the man, armed with a pistol, began shooting at deputies. They exchanged gunfire and the man was shot dead. No deputies were injured during the exchange, Gonzalez said.”
Im just commenting on the clickbait and slanted headline and its intended effects.
I did read the article and thats how I came to see the slant, and why I chose to comment on it.
the headline def means to slant towards sovcit being the victim
Or lazily slanting towards “ACAB”.
That would be like describing 9/11 as “Man flies plane into building, twice”. I imagine the cops screamed at him to submit, he refused then violence.
Because they had a conversation for an hour and a half talking to the guy before he drove off on them. That’s an hour and a half of sovcit circle talk bullshit.
deleted by creator
Right, click-bait.
I don’t know what his last words were but I know they were something stupid. Maybe:
‘You can’t shoot me, I have a form!’
I don’t consent to bleeding out
"I’m the entity, not the individual! People can die, but ideas live forev
sovereign citizens be handing a judge the “get out of jail free” monopoly card and thinking “this is real”
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT!
Sovcit learned why states have power over us.
This is the lesson I get from the movement. “States hold us hostage a gunpoint and would really really like us to give them permission, but make no mistake, step out of line and you’re dead. For your own good of course !” It’s like someone asks you permission, for something they were going to do anyway, but it makes them feel better if you say yes.
SovCits are just selfish assholes that want all the benefits of living in society without any of the obligations. They want to use roads, have nice things, relax, and have plenty of food, but they don’t want to pay for them or contribute to their upkeep. That’s why they are always trying to worm out of oaying child support, not pay for traffic violations, get out of their sewer bills, and other anti-social behavior.
If bro was living on a commune and he forgot what happens when you call them murder pigs to their face it’d be one thing, but something tells me he got mad because his stupid plate he bought on the Internet got him pulled over.
The article mentions he had 2 felony warrants.
Felony warrants don’t just appear out of nowhere.
‘Sovereign citizen’ shot, killed during exchange with Harris County deputies | Houston Public Media
Classic misunderstanding. The corporation in his name has two felony warrants. This individual is simply being prosecuted by mistake and without consent. I’m sure he mailed the forms in triplicate with the horizontal red ink to confirm.
Are those continental warrants, or were they issued from a maritime courtroom? (You can tell by the fringe on the flag in the courtroom.)
This sounds like “if you don’t like capitalism, why do you have a cell phone and BUY food ?”
Some people it seems would orefer if there were nine if that. That it is an intolerable imposition on them to be forced to support all that with no real say in the matter and no possibility of escape.
I feel it boils down to “if you don’t like it, go live on Mars”
This sounds like “if you don’t like capitalism, why do you have a cell phone and BUY food ?”
Well, why do they? The cell phone uses private and public infrastructure to be transported and operated, which they don’t contribute to, and these sovcits are gung-ho on private rights and all that, so why should a private company like Verizon have to allow them to use their wireless or internet networks?
And unless they walk across the air to get to the store to buy food, all of that was transported via public infrastructure (roads, trains, ships, etc), of which they would also need to utilize to get their food. Again, none of which they want to contribute to.
Some people it seems would orefer if there were nine if that. That it is an intolerable imposition on them to be forced to support all that with no real say in the matter and no possibility of escape.
No one is stopping them from checking out of society and living in the woods or whatever. Again, you don’t get the benefits of the social contract and then decide you’re special and none of the obligations are applicable to you, personally.
Life’s not fair and it sucks, get over it.
I feel it boils down to “if you don’t like it, go live on Mars”
No, again, they’re welcome to live in the woods or wherever. There’s no magic combination of words or make believe forms that gets you out of taxes or alimony or to get a house for free or whatever other nonsense these sovcits are coming up with.
It’s pure entitlement on their part, that they’re somehow more specialer than the rest of humanity who also didn’t choose to be here and also had no say in the capitalist hellscape we all get to live in.
No, it does not sound like that. Not at all.
The clothing I am wearing I am confident was made by children in Asia. I would really rather this not be the case. I can’t afford clothing not made in sweatshops. I can be very much against sweatshops and at the same time not have a way around them. This is not the same as refusing to pay child support or a speeding ticket.
Removed by mod
I"m glad somebody else finds it odd that so many here describe themselves as leftists yet seem to do nothing but sympathize with right wing rhetoric.
Does that make this an intranational incident?
He probably should have stayed in his own country
Our deputies are not required to allow anyone to violate the laws.
Wut?
It also doesn’t mention anywhere who’s shot hit the woman in the summary blurb. Was it the cops or the dude who began shooting at the cops that was shot dead?
Our deputies are not required to allow anyone to violate the laws.
Wut?
It’s a response to the “sovereign citizen” thing. Sovcits believe that the law does not apply to them.
It reads like they are not required to stop someone violating the law. They can if they want, but they could also just let the crime happen.
And they can. It’s sometimes framed as prosecutorial discretion. It’s the reason why if you’re driving with the “flow” of traffic that is speeding, you can get pulled over and no one else. They aren’t legally required to pull over any of them, let alone the “first” offender.
They aren’t. And often don’t. If they stopped everyone who violated a traffic law they’d have to invest too much time and effort for little effect. That’s why there’s usually a threshold most of us know we can get away with speeding a certain amount. Cops have to use their discretion on which offenses to persue and which to ignore
Passive language, “was struck”= the cop shot her
Since it doesn’t mention it I’ll assume it was the cops.
It’s quite possible they don’t know who shot the bystander and won’t until after some investigation. Not a huge amount, but just reviewing any footage, seeing where people were when they were shooting and shot, probably looking at the bullets.
The first bit is because sovereign citizens believe they can opt out of the law, and police will have to let them violate the law with impunity.
Probably don’t know yet
When you hear Harris County shot a white man, you know they tried all other options first.
