NavyJack – Chicago Police Warn of Nationwide Protests Over Paul O’Neil Shooting (Updated 08/09/2016)

NavyJack – Chicago Police Warn of Nationwide Protests Over Paul O’Neil Shooting (Updated 08/09/2016)

Multiple videos were released on Friday showing the Chicago Police shooting of Paul O’Neil, an unarmed teen.    Officers can be seen firing at the teen in a stolen Jaguar. They are shown chasing, apprehending and then pushing his head down to the sidewalk after he’d been shot.

“What I saw was a cold-blooded murder. It was a cold-blooded killing. You don’t even shoot — you shouldn’t even shoot dogs that are running away” said Michael Oppenheimer, the attorney for O’Neal’s family.

The 18-year-old was shot and killed by police during a stolen vehicle investigation in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood.

The videos released include a dash-cam from the squad car with two officers involved in the shooting, as well as body camera videos from the officers in that car. Several of the videos show officers firing.  The videos show the Jaguar O’Neil was driving hitting a police SUV, and O’Neal running as police pursued him behind some homes, running up driveways and jumping fences. There does not appear to be any video showing shots being fired after O’Neal is seen running away from the car. Representatives of O’Neal’s family say that’s when he was shot in the back. Shots can be heard on body camera footage during the chase, and one officer can be heard asking who was firing.  The videos capture at least 15 shots being fired as the Jaguar passed the officers and drove away.  The sound of four more shots can be heard during the foot pursuit.

See additional videos and commentary at DNA Info Chicago.

The Chicago Police Department has issued an alert to warn law enforcement departments around the country that the release of today’s of body camera video showing the fatal shooting of a black man by three officers may cause violence against police in their own communities.

“Law enforcement authorities in Chicago warned that making the video of Paul O’Neal’s death public, along with the anniversary of Michael Brown’s death on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Missouri, may cause an uptick in violence against police nationwide.”

Three Chicago police officers have been relieved of duty after a preliminary determination that they had violated police department policy, according to Fox News.

Police nationwide have been on high alert since a sniper killed five officers during a Black Lives Matter protest on July 7 and another three officers were gunned down in Baton Rouge, Louisiana only 10 days later. The Chicago Tribune has complete coverage of this evolving story.

Update 08/09/2016

According to Fox News, one Chicago gang has claimed to have a sniper in place and said that it has distributed illegal automatic weapons to other gangs. Local authorities are on high alert, and officers have been asked to “limit their interactions” as well as their visibility.

 

 

About Author

Navy Jack

During my service I deployed on various platforms, including submarines, amphibious assault units and special boats. I participated in expeditionary and humanitarian missions to the North Atlantic, Iran, Beirut, Libya, and the Caribbean. I am a Patron Life Member of the NRA. I am an Oath Keeper Life Member.

Comments

  1. Jim 5 August, 2016, 15:51

    Let us see, everyone, including most criminals, knows that it is a felony to steal an automobile in just about every state in our country. Most people, and all criminals, know that if you are in the commission of a felony you may legally be shot by police, or even a private citizen, depending on circumstances. So, from the facts stated, what is the problem? It really sounds like this “poor little misunderstood” criminal got what he expected. Another felon bites the dust – legally! Thanks Navy Jack.

    Reply this comment
    • Elias Alias 5 August, 2016, 15:58

      And, uhm, we did hear the cops at the scene injecting suggestions that the kid fired at cops, right? Why were they lying?

      There are jails for non-violent felons, and a court of law should have been the result of this kid’s truer justice.

      When it comes to taking human lives, even the lives of people committing felonies, if the suspect is not armed, then I say to hell with any “regulation” or “policy” or “rule” that would exonerate an officer using deadly force. Do you not think that there were enough cops on hand there at the scene to simply wait the dude out after he ran out of places to hide? Where is your damned sense of humanity, Bro? Was shooting him in the back really necessary under these circumstances? No, it was not “necessary”. That is my opinion, in response to your opinion.

      Salute!
      Elias

      Reply this comment
      • Thinker 5 August, 2016, 16:16

        Thank you. Yes, the kid was committing a felony, but if we allow police to be judge, jury and executioner then we may as well throw the Constitution out the window. If we allow public servants to get away with time and time again, it will be more difficult to reinstate the Rule of Law for anything in this country.

        Reply this comment
        • Bob 5 August, 2016, 21:33

          Thinker, you sound like a typical libtard, focusing on “the criminal is the victim” bullshiite. When punks like this are allowed to skate the entire nation suffers. the story said he rammed a police car. that is assault. skin color was not likely a factor but that is what is being used as a defense for a violent criminal punk!!!!

          Reply this comment
          • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 22:40

            Well, I’m certainly no “typical libtard” but I am a constitutionalist, and that Constitution we all swore an oath to defend contains requirements of due process and jury trial for all accused of crime, and police shooting a suspect, when he is simply fleeing, is not justifiable unless they can articulate a reasonable belief that he was an immediate deadly threat to the lives of others. We don’t see such facts in this case (not after he got out of the car and fled on foot). That is not focusing on “the criminal is the victim” bullshite. It is focusing on the Constitution, and on the separation of powers, and on the role of the jury as the only institution that can judge the guilt or innocence of any of us, and it is focusing on the presumption of innocence that protects you, me, and all our families, right along with the “dirtbags” you want to see dead.

            Remember, those same “libtards” would love to see law enforcement – local, state, and federal – just blow you away too, since they consider you a dirtbag. Keep that in mind.

            The Founders were smart men, and in their wisdom they made it hard for the government to just kill anyone a government officer thinks is a “dirtbag” or a “violent criminal punk.”

            Bob has it right when he says “if we allow police to be judge, jury and executioner then we may as well throw the Constitution out the window. If we allow public servants to get away with time and time again, it will be more difficult to reinstate the Rule of Law for anything in this country.”

            Spot on.

          • meshannon 7 August, 2016, 12:08

            He tried to hit an officer with the car
            That is assault with a deadly weapon.
            You wouldn’t be a bleeding heart if that
            officer was someone to you.
            Maybe the schools need to have a mandatory
            class on how to respond when an officer tells
            you to stop, drop it … basic stuff, right?

          • Elias Alias 7 August, 2016, 12:52

            Let me repeat this one more time please, because so many comments here reflect your basic misunderstanding. The dude did not TRY to hit an officer. The officer pulled his car head-on in front of the dude as the dude was trying to outrun officers. The dude tried to get by the officer who’s car was in the way. He did not TRY to hit an officer. Your statement carries an implication that the dude deliberately targeted a police car, when that is simply not what happened.
            Regarding what should be taught in schools, well, I’ll simply say that teaching proper respect for law, and for law enforcement officers, should be done by parents in the home, and reinforced in churches or other societal institutions. Contrary to what Hitlery says, it takes a “family” — not a “Village”; and, contrary to what the National Education Association says, kids should be taught the difference between right and wrong. In the home. By parents and family.
            Salute!
            Elias Alias, editor

        • Hereward 6 August, 2016, 10:38

          Why should people with no regard for other’s, “get away with it”? Did he try to ram a police car?

          Reply this comment
          • Elias Alias 6 August, 2016, 15:44

            Thieves should not try to “get away with it”, but they usually do. There is no excuse for stealing a car, and justice should have been done. I resent anyone taking someone else’s property, and I fully believe that any thief should be caught and punished. However, with today’s survellance state there is no way that kid could have evaded the police for very long, and we all know that. So it was not really necessary to shoot the kid in the back for running.
            As for his hitting a squad car, he was not trying to ram it, he was trying to avoid it — at least that’s how it appeared to me when viewing the videos.
            Salute!
            Elias Alias, editor

      • JeffH 5 August, 2016, 16:52

        I’ll not pass judgement before all of the facts are out but one fact is that “The videos show the Jaguar O’Neil was driving hitting a police SUV.”
        Does this equate to “assault with a deadly weapon”?
        Yes it does! So, under any law that makes the 18 year old MAN an instant threat and a violent felon. Does it not?

        One other fact that is glaringly apparent is that if this young man had not commited multiple felonies he would probably be alive today and the police would not have been put in this life and death situation to begin with. It’s way too easy to just point the finger at the cops…most of whom are the good guys along with a few bad apples…and excuse the criminal actions of the willfully ignorant. There are good choices and bad choices to be made throughout life. The bad choices usually have bad endings up to and including loss if life. Nobody says life is fair but I firmly believe you get out of life what you put into it.
        That’s my opinion!

        Reply this comment
        • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 17:18

          Well, even if they were justified in firing while he was driving, as he ran into a cop car, what was the justification for firing on him while he fled on foot? That is the real problem. Not the shots fired at him while he was still in the vehicle. Shooting at someone who is fleeing on foot is only justified if he poses a clear and present danger of death to others, such as shooting a fleeing terrorist wearing an IED, for example, or a gunman you reasonably believe is going to kill others in short order. You can’t just shoot fleeing, unarmed car thieves and then say it is OK because it’s his own fault, because he shouldn’t have chosen to be a thief. Cops cannot punish people for “bad choices.” They can only use lethal force in defense of life. Period.

          Reply this comment
          • Mindy 5 August, 2016, 18:29

            I saw cops that did not attempt to kill in cold blood. I saw cops who were not trained near well enough and paniced instead of keeping their cool. I fully expected to see a kid killed in cold blood, that’s not what happened. But, the thought that we have cops running around who are ill prepared to handle dangerous situations does not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. There was potential in this situation for an innocent bystander to have been shot, even a child. Question is, who is responsible for insuring a cop is so well trained they are going to stay calm and cool during high stress and potentially dangerous situations such as this? Just my 2 cents worth.

          • Diane D 6 August, 2016, 09:44

            I’ve read all the comments thru 6 August, 2016, 06:08

            Stewart nailed the issue above. Like he said, Period.

          • Armed & Dangerous 6 August, 2016, 10:43

            Stewart, I have to disagree with you. 1) As soon as the kid committed to ramming his car through, and past the cop cars, endangering the lies of officers or anyone else standing near-by, that vehicle became a deadly weapon and he began using deadly force as an escape. 2) Because of his willingness to use deadly force against officers, it opens the door for him to REALLY use it against anyone else standing in his way. I mean, if it doesn’t bother that kid to run over a cop, then why should it bother him in the least bit to run over someone else? 3) if he’s willing to use that kind of blatant force and seem to have no worries about it, then civilians are even at more risk, such as being a hostage if he gets into someone’s back yard and kids are playing, or into someone’s house while a family is there. You’re right, police are NOT the trial, jury or the judge, but in open and active situations like this, where someone has shown that they WILL use deadly force to get away, it is of absolute importance for the safety of everyone in the area for that guy to be stopped. If that means shooting him, then so be it. That choice was made by HIM… not the police. You served. Insurgents fire upon you and your crew, then they run away. Do you hold fire because they’re running, or do you open-up on them as soon as they’re in your sights? yes, there is a difference between “war” and law enforcement on the streets, I get that.. I’m not stupid, but the fact is, the police are also providing a service of enforcing the law and doing what they NEED to do to protect citizens by stopping perpetrators before they coming even more crimes, or deaths. That kid clearly showed he was willing to kill to get away. People are screaming that the cops shot at him, yet the law clearly specifies that if you drive a car towards an officer, that vehicle becomes a deadly weapon and deadly force may legally be used to stop it, and the driver. People would be screaming even louder if that punk had jumped a fence into a back yard where a mother and some children were and he took them hostage and killed one or more of them. The bottom line is this; punks and gang bangers these days have no fear of the law. In fact many of them use being arrested as being a badge of honor. That in itself puts innocent people at risk and it actually promotes more crime. I’ve always been for shooting and killing anyone fleeing cops in high speed chases as soon a they blast though a couple of stop signs simply because at that point they are openly displaying that they WILL run over anyone in their way and have zero regard for anyone else’s life. At that point the best thing for them is a good dose of 00 Buck through the windshield. If more of that happened, there would be less of this kind of crap going on. If they don’t do that sort of thing, we get what we have going on right now which is FAR too many high speed chases. In fact, they do it for fun, which puts everyone on the roads and on the sidewalks at risk. I don’t know about you but I prefer for the idiots committing those crimes to be dead… not innocent people who end-up being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

          • Nick 7 August, 2016, 10:21

            I’ll mention this again since I see it as a real issue. First, a cop drew a gun and started firing at the vehicle as it passed and continued firing in a stressful situation, Why? He was in a residential neighborhood, with other cops in his sights at distance.that any training would have given him some thought.

        • Cal 5 August, 2016, 17:52

          Do you remember the admonishment going around to people that if they are attacked they can hurt or kill the attacker, but if the attacker turns and runs and the immediate danger is past is then the crime of murder?

          Reply this comment
          • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 22:44

            Yep, because that is the law of self defense and defense of others, and it applies to all of us, including the cops, right along with those of us who go armed with our “private firearms.” It is universal.

            And the only exception that any of us can possibly avail ourselves of is that the fleeing person is about to go attack others, such as a gunman on an “active shooter” rampage, or a bomber, etc. As I said in my response to someone else.

            But that is merely another version of defense of others, which does allow the use of deadly force to stop a threat. But that is the point – to stop a threat to life, not to “put that dirty criminal down” as some here seem to relish.

      • Kmc 5 August, 2016, 18:07

        Hey tried to run them down with the stolen car, ie deadly weapon

        Reply this comment
        • Elias Alias 5 August, 2016, 18:53

          Nope, he swerved to get around the car blocking him. That does not show intent to “run them down”, and in fact he did not “run them down”. And again I’ll add — why were the cops talking about him shooting at them? I’ve seen absolutely no reports of him having a gun. They are on film talking about him shooting at them. So where’s the gun? It puts me in mind of the Jose Guerena shooting back on May 05, 2011, which you may wish to read about here, because it can show some things in a light which may help you grok why so many Americans resent the military-police state mentality being erected in this country, the training to see Americans as “the enemy”. Notice in Part One of my series how the story changed in the news releases as the Sheriff’s department spoke first about Jose’s bullets bouncing off the police shield as they came through his door with guns drawn — using that as justification in the public media for shooting him dead in his own home — and notice how then the story changed, morphed into the fact that his rifle had not been taken off “safe” and that he had not fired at all. Reporting on Jose’s case I traced the entire “policy” back up the chain from Jose’s hallway inside his house where SWAT fired 71 rounds at him, all the way up to the Department of Homeland Security and the influences which caused that unlawful department to be created (DHS: completely un-Constitutional. I traced the unholy relationship of the SPLC with DHS, its use of Fusion Centers to disseminate whatever public profiles SPLC belched forth, and the network of a chain of command between the military (DOD) and DHS and DOJ; showing how the belligerent putrid hatred which infests the consciousness of the SPLC seeped into the DHS (at tax payer expense, I’m sure) and went out through Fusion Centers to State and Local enforcement agencies, creating the pre-disposition for a shift in police training and the use of SWAT to serve warrants and the 1033 program which provided local enforcement with battlefield equipment. And more. So I am inviting you to read about this in the Oath Keepers Academy so you will be able to see how modern-day police training is being used by nefarious influences to tear down this nation at its societal roots.

          Part One: https://www.oathkeepers.org/an-empire-strikes-home-part-one/
          Part Two: https://www.oathkeepers.org/an-empire-strikes-home-part-two/
          Part Three: https://www.oathkeepers.org/an-empire-strikes-home-part-three/
          Part Four: https://www.oathkeepers.org/an-empire-strikes-home-part-four/
          Part Five: https://www.oathkeepers.org/an-empire-strikes-home-part-five/

          In sum: he did not “try to run them down”, and he had no gun, was just trying to not get caught after stealing a car.
          Thanks for reading and posting here.
          Salute!
          Elias Alias, editor

          Reply this comment
        • Capt Lloyd Chester Anderson 6 August, 2016, 03:04

          Really, what I seen was a trigger happy Cop that was shooting at a fleeing car thief that after he was shot at ran into the road block a fled on foot and was shot in the back four times after that ,plus he hit his brakes before he hit , showing hitting the road block was an accident. He could have ran the one officer over, but clearly did not, but tried swerved to miss him, just as his partner started to shoot at him in a wild and very reckless manner. This could have been avoided and they could have taken this stupid kid in with out killing him. I have to say it and I don’t Care what these guys say If you are that damn scared of dying take the badge off and go find a job doing something else. We real should not be putting ex Combat soldiers in policing any way because it causes problems just like this they are trained to kill and ask questions later they draw their weapon and fire it and kill people that they don’t have the right to kill or even fire at. I have seen this same type of behavior in Iraq just because people panic when guys with guns start firing at them. Everyone needs to ask is a human life worth the cost of a car?

          Reply this comment
      • Bob 5 August, 2016, 21:29

        He collided with a police car. that shows assault with a deadly weapon. This punk got what he deserved!!!!!

        Reply this comment
        • Elias Alias 5 August, 2016, 22:46

          So, like the cops who shot him, you’re now a goddam judge, eh? By your system of logic, several million Americans are now deserving of being shot down by cops as a routine answer to any felony crime. What the teenager “deserved” was a day in court. Argue around that fact all you want, but if you try to get around it, I’ll pray you’re not toting a badge, because that sort of mentality has no place in any police department. Life is not so cheap as you would have us believe. Try again?
          Salute!
          Elias Alias, editor

          Reply this comment
          • law abiding citizen 6 August, 2016, 08:08

            If you don’t commit a crime you don’t have to be concerned about being shot! I would really like to know how you people playing the tune of the oh Poor criminal would act in a situation just like this! Remember don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time!

          • Elias Alias 7 August, 2016, 14:08

            For “law abiding citizen”, who in a comment above said this:

            > “If you don’t commit a crime you don’t have to be concerned about being shot! I would really like to know how you people playing the tune of the oh Poor criminal would act in a situation just like this! Remember don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time!” < . ___________________ . There used to be a time when your statement would hold water, but not these days. (And this is why Oath Keepers is calling on all good cops to clean their house by exposing corruption, reporting crimes committed within their ranks, and exhibiting unnecessary brutality. It is also why Oath Keepers questions the mental, logistical, and physical programming which has militarized our cops unlawfully.) What crime had this social worker done prior to laying down on his back in the street with his hands up in the air and telling the cops he was trying to help the autistic man seated next to him in the middle of the street? And why, when the victim asked the cop "Why did you shoot me?", did the cop answer, "I don’t know.”. Go ahead and click this — it’s only two minutes:

            https://www.oathkeepers.org/amazing-cnn-cop-shoots-man-with-hands-up/

          • Elias Alias 7 August, 2016, 14:14

            If you really want to see what I’m talking about, please do start here —

            Part One: https://www.oathkeepers.org/an-empire-strikes-home-part-one/

            Salute!
            Elias

          • floam 6 August, 2016, 08:30

            Here is another thought to ponder….in Greenville SC, one of our officers was shot and killed, didn’t even have his holster open. He was part of the police organization that worked with inner city youth. Please read the article/link below and think of this when law enforcement personnel are out there on the front lines, making split second decisions and hoping that they make it home to their families day after day. Officer Jacobs was not a rookie. He cared about our community and all lives within that community to the point of giving his.

            http://police.greenvillesc.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=540

        • meshannon 7 August, 2016, 12:13
      • FRDMWRX 6 August, 2016, 00:26

        i agree with Elias. Deadly force should only be used in direct defense of the life of another. When the kid rammed through the street, apparently nearly hitting officers, that might justify deadly force, depending on the circumstances, which are unknown to me. But shooting at the suspect when he was no threat, and especially shooting him in the back, is inexcusable. I spent 20 years behind a badge, and this conduct would have gotten me fired and prosecuted. And it should have. I hope some other innocent officer doesn’t get ambushed in retaliation for this.

        Reply this comment
        • Stewart Rhodes 6 August, 2016, 00:52

          Thank you for your comment, and I also hope this does not lead to the death of some other innocent officer.

          Reply this comment
          • Nick 7 August, 2016, 11:21

            I don’t know who these people are that agree with the police shooting, but when I read the comments, I am more and more convinced that the possibility of a civil war is building.
            As with groups like “Mothers Demand Action”, there will be those who agree with a growing tyranny that they’ve convinced themselves won’t happen here. They condone almost any act of violence committed by the state, and disparage even acts of self-defense by the average individual citizen.
            250 MILLION civilians murdered in the last century in acts of genocide in both political and ethnic cleansing. The trigger is always pulled by those who think that there is some right that they have that others do not deserve.

    • Nomad 5 August, 2016, 16:05

      STeal in a car DOES NOT incluDE a death by cop immediate sentence carried out.. did he have a gun or knife? ? Then this is just WRONG ! ! I back LEO when he is right.. but I do NOT when they are wrong..and I’m seeing way too many wrong shootings by cops..not just black or brown or even white.. home invasions by cops.. I see the beginnings of Police State..and I damn well don’t like it..wake up Oath Keepers..LOOK..SEE..PREPARE

      Reply this comment
    • stevesr54 5 August, 2016, 16:09

      He got what he deserved!

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 5 August, 2016, 17:36

        Remember that when they come for you. Are you aware that the statures “laws” are so many that you yourself break them every day, some are labeled “felony”? So are you sure that you want a person to be judge, jury, executioner here in the USA?

        Because if this is your attitude, your true belief, then you are in the WRONG country.

        You see, here in the USA we are still under the US Constitution and just because we have a ton of TRAITORS and *TERRORISTS working (elected, hired, contracted, etc) within our governments – state and federal – does not mean that those who took the Oath should break it (a FELONY and the crimes of perjury) assisting in the ongoing treason and other crimes. Or are you saying that they also should be shot by someone who thinks they should be judge jury, and executioner? I am pretty sure that the only serial felons we have that commit them daily are those that serve somewhere within our governments. I, personally, believe that they need to be, as all criminals within the USA need and are REQUIRED to be, charged with the crime committed and given their day in court.

        Reply this comment
      • csaaphill 5 August, 2016, 20:39

        What a hateful remark I certainly hope you don’t believe in God. If so God help us OMFG.

        Reply this comment
    • Bryan 5 August, 2016, 16:19

      Add to that two counts of felony assault on police officers and felony eluding for sideswiping one police vehicle and hitting another head on! He was using a vehicle as a deadly weapon, he put the officers and the public at risk.

      Reply this comment
      • Capt Lloyd Chester Anderson 6 August, 2016, 03:16

        so did the Cops when they put Public property in the way and left him no other choice but hit the cars or run over someone else. Is a car worth a cops life or anyone else that may have been there? They picked a very bad spot to try and boxing him in that put their lives at rick and the public lives at risk in that neighborhood with the spraying bullet at said car as it passed. .

        Reply this comment
      • Just Think 6 August, 2016, 07:29

        Ok, he then exited the vehicle on foot unarmed, the threat is no more. So, shoot him because?? I caught a white male jumping through my window after breaking into my home, still not yet over my fence, grabbed my pistol and… Long story short had I shot him I would still be in jail 9 years later. He was no threat to me or family fleeing…..So many of you here are aiding your own demise. With each incident like this more of your constitution is being shredded.You voluntarily give away the protections afforded you in the Constitution by defending and justifying such acts. some very wickedly wise people are counting on the unresolved Racial problems in America to usher in the anchors for the long planned police state. There is no institutions in America that’s free from that racists element. Racism doesn’t just vanish with time.. And soon America will resemble the war torn police state cities that we see on CNN in other countries. America has a RACE issue!! No one with any shred of sense and honesty can truthfully deny that! There apparently exist two Americas and two sets of laws depending on which one you’re from. Those of you so adamantly supporting these illegal acts will soon become victims to the very Police State your helping to install. We build jails for criminals, not cemeteries! So much for this “Christian Nation” who boast “In God we trust”. Criminals can be redeemed from Prisons not cemeteries. If God were to kill man for every infraction not ONE would remain.

        Reply this comment
        • Armed & Dangerous 6 August, 2016, 10:49

          And they knew he was “unarmed’ when he exited the car how? Did they strip search him before he exited and ran? They had NO way of knowing that kid didn’t have a concealed gun until AFTER they apprehended him. he already displayed that he was willing to use deadly force to get away. had he have had a concealed gun while he was running into people’s back yards and he shot someone or took hostages, people would be crying for why didn’t the cops shoot and stop him. The FACT is, they had NO way of knowing he was unarmed at the time of the chase, period!

          Reply this comment
    • Sgtstriker 5 August, 2016, 17:14

      Most statutes that state that you can shoot a fleeing felon also include the provision that it must be a violent felon and that the fleeing felon poses a significant risk of death or great bodily injury to other citizens if he is not immediately apprehended. It may be difficult making that case in this incident since the kid was apparently unarmed and he had not injured anybody when he was shot.
      The cops in the first video both made poor tactical decisions that could have resulted in either or both of them being injured or killed. First, exiting their car into the path of an oncoming fleeing suspect – just stupid! Second, the passenger officer decides to shoot at the suspect as he drives past, while his partner in the line of fire on the opposite side of the suspect vehicle – Really stupid!
      Third, particularly the passenger officer, but also the driver, fire down the street at the fleeing vehicle while there is an oncoming police unit in the line of fire, and possibly civilian pedestrians – Really, really, stupid!
      (I know, Monday morning quarterbacking…. But the videos make it pretty clear that these cops posed more of a risk than the suspect in this incident, IMHO.)

      Reply this comment
      • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 17:41

        Thanks for your comment. And this in particular “Most statutes that state that you can shoot a fleeing felon also include the provision that it must be a violent felon and that the fleeing felon poses a significant risk of death or great bodily injury to other citizens if he is not immediately apprehended. It may be difficult making that case in this incident since the kid was apparently unarmed and he had not injured anybody when he was shot.” That’s the crux of it.

        Reply this comment
    • Cal 5 August, 2016, 17:26

      Jim,

      Be thankful that it is NOT lawful to shoot someone committing a felony unless a life is REALLY in danger. Know why? Because it is a FELONY to break the OATH, not just the crime of Perjury. How many cops today keep any of the Oath? Think about it. Every act they do that breaks the Oath, like those others who serve within our governments – stare and federal – are felonies.

      Obama, the presidential impersonator commits First Degree Murder openly and laughs about how good he is at “killing people”. It is difficult when the government is filled with TRAITORS, not just domestic enemies of the lower sort for others to be honest in their dealings, but that is what must happen.

      Color of Law is NOT law, it is usurpation. Murder under color of law is treason and *terrorism against the American people here in the USA.

      Here are some laws that are going to make a lot hate me, but understand, YOU (generic to a lot – and you know who I am talking about) are SAFER following the US Constitution, KEEPING your Oath as is required. I have tried for years here and elsewhere to show the history of how law enforcement has sunk so low. If you do not understand why the law enforcement had to be changed so that they could be the first soldiers USED against the American people, to destroy the USA, how can you believe that your actions must change?

      Plummer vs. State: “You may go to the extreme of taking an officers life if he is committing an unlawful arrest.”

      This decision was upheld (Plummer vs. State) by the Supreme Court in: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 where the Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

      I do NOT want you dead or injured. America needs you, but not as a corrupt cop – knowingly or unknowingly. Plus if you study history when LE’s (generic) discover that you were mislead and are losing everything also along with the people, then they will take you out because you would then become a huge danger to them. it is called a “police state” for a reason, it is the “police” (domestic soldiers to keep order) of every format that is the first USED against the people in every time throughout history that it has happened. Then those are murdered also. For once do not let history repeat, again and again; learn from it and do NOT make the same mistakes. Please.

      *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      Reply this comment
    • NonFelon 5 August, 2016, 18:42

      I’d rather not have some car stealing crazy thug, who thought nothing of ramming people with his car running around my neighborhood, endangering my kids. I want the police to shoot assholes like that. I’m not worried about my kids, because they don’t steal, and don’t try to kill other people with stolen cars.

      Reply this comment
      • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 19:35

        Well, that’s easy to say, but do I really need to dig up examples of non-criminals who have been shot by the police to make you worry about it? I can. Look up Jack Yantis, for starters. And then the 12 year old boy in Cleveland who had a toy gun, and was needlessly shot by a cop who essentially charged up on him, at close range (which was idiotic, tactically) and shot the kid while giving the kid zero chance to comply with any commands (which the cop did not even bother to try to give him – he just drove up close, jumped out, and shot him).

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

        That kid was not a felon, and he was just a kid playing with a toy gun, like kids do all over the nation. You think your kids are immune from something like that happening to them from some trigger happy, tactically inept “cowboy” fool of a cop? I don’t.

        We have some very competent, squared away cops in this org, but they will be the first to tell you that there are many out there on the streets who simply don’t belong behind a badge and a gun, and who are ticking time bombs of incompetency, negligence, and even intentional abuse of power. Here, read what Oath Keepers national peace officer liaison and Missouri police defensive tactics instructor John Karriman has to say about the low quality of all too many of the people now being admitted into the profession:

        John Karriman:

        I would like to say the majority of LE out there do a great job, but it just aint so. I’ve only been around it for forty years, so I might be full of shit. I started studying the criminal justice system back in ’76. My age put me between wars (following a rather unpopular one) so instead of the military, I went into LE, hitting the street when I was 21. Because of my martial arts background; I got tabbed to teach at the regional academy after my rookie season. I assisted two of my mentors (both Marines) until taking over the program 25 years ago. Those contacts opened doors for some interesting travel and training, since one of them retired as a Master Sergeant in CI (tale end of WWII through Vietnam). I found that being part of the Intel community was like being in the mob- you never really get out.

        Having been a training officer and DTI since ’81 has been an eye opener. The job attracts bullies, cowards, sloths and dullards at an alarming rate. The vast majority lack the interpersonal skills and servant’s heart the job requires to do right. Forget about athleticism or the bringing of any useful skills to the table. It’s too often a bad fit. When I tell them they are basically paid athletes and modern day knights; you can see the fatties glaze over. I have used one of MS Gordon’s statements- “Son, you must be lost, cuz this aint no pie eating contest.”

        The job requires the ability to wear many hats. Most aren’t up to the task. Bad actors surround themselves with more of the same and it’s the good officer that gets run off or quits in disgust. My motto of- Treat ’em like family until you can’t, falls on deaf ears for many of them. Most seem to relish preying on those that are just attempting to get by while they avoid dealing with the real hard-asses. Despite my warnings about falling into the Us vs Them trap; they almost seem to take a perverse pleasure in costing their fellow travelers time or money. As far as targeting minorities, Cracker please. They avoid having to deal with minorities like the plague because of fears of non-compliance or their special…afrocentricities (yeah, I made it up). They are code named- Democrats (when we’re using codes) Of course, then there’s language barriers and the lack of ID with our undocumented “visitors” or preDemocrats (preedeez) as some of them are known.

        When I see military men (and women) come through the academy after a tour or two under their belts; I usually move them into leadership positions. When the cadets have been allowed to pick their class leader; they invariably will pass over the quarter of the class with military experience. I correct that mistake, but it’s always the same; pass over the military people and then complain about them when they have to bring their problems to them first before it gets to me. Crybabies. They buck chain of command because they were told by momma how special they are.

        The military folks have the mental and physical discipline the job deserves, but are invariably bad-mouthed by their soft counterparts (while still at the academy and later on the street). They have been exposed to a true command structure and are mission oriented, but instead of respect and a desire to learn from them; there is contempt and sometimes sabotage in the promotion game. It’s jealousy, purely and simply. Their soft counterparts know they couldn’t have made it in military life. It is one small sticking point with me, having taken the LE/Intel route and not having spent some time in the Suq. Oh, I’ve seen the elephant, but I feel like I missed out. Working around military and Intel personnel isn’t the same as having gotten to experience the ups and downs of military life.

        https://www.oathkeepers.org/tearing-down-blue-wall-of-silence-will-take-dedicated-resources/

        Reply this comment
      • Armed & Dangerous 6 August, 2016, 10:51

        Where’s the LIKE button for this comment? I totally agree!

        Reply this comment
    • Vinny 5 August, 2016, 18:50

      Great post Jim….my feelings exactly. Stealing cars, using stolen credit cards (and on video) involved in an ongoing crime operation, ramming the police car with that stolen Jaguar, getting out and running and getting shot is the only result he, and anyone with brains should of expected. Poetic justice anyway you look at it. I can assure you that if you put yourself in that position, regardless of who or where you are, the same result should be expected. Good riddance to another worthless and dangerous felon.

      Reply this comment
    • Mike Ogden 5 August, 2016, 19:49

      Exactly… Little shit bag tried to run down an office and got what thieving little shit bags deserve.

      Reply this comment
      • Elias Alias 5 August, 2016, 20:28

        Uhm, I think that if you consider this more closely, you’ll have to agree that the kid was trying to get away from the officers, not run them down. You may paint anything any color you want, if your thinking processes are merely programmed to blindly support over-reaching “authority” and wave your little American flag to support the enforcement arms of government – you’re free to see things any way you like. I, on the other hand, remember when I was a teenager among a generation of teenagers who would sometimes do stupid stuff, including mischief which would today be classed as a “felony”. Somehow back in those good ol’ days, we teenagers could live long enough to learn some wisdom and self-control, which this poor kid was probably missing at home during his growing up years, and was probably also victimized by a pro-statist government advocacy mindset based on the welfare-warfare-state subconsciously implanted in most young minds during public school “Feducation”. This is a classic example of what happens when the “It takes a Village” socialist philosophy theory is put into practice by the state — if you doubt me look up the history of the NEA, and you may start here —

        http://concernedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nea.pdf

        The kid did wrong. No argument there. What we have allowed to become “policy”, however, casts some of the blame on us as citizens. I recommend a bit of forgiveness dwell always in our human hearts, and that we seek the truth of life, of personal responsibility and the freedom that rightly brings. We must turn our backs on this statist mentality which pits us against each other. Death is a heavy penalty, especially when it comes by the hand of the state and without a trial. Marks are left on the souls of those who shot this kid, and they will become aware of those marks in coming years. That is to be part of our considerations here, I’d suggest.
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor

        Reply this comment
    • USMC0351Grunt 5 August, 2016, 20:50

      It would have been considered a, “clean shoot” had it been a VIOLENT CRIME such as rape, murder, bank robbery or any other number along those lines…. A car can be replaced, whereas lives cannot.

      Reply this comment
      • Vinny 6 August, 2016, 11:26

        USMC0351Grunt……It was a well deserved “clean shoot” …..the guy tried to run down the police and rammed the Jaguar into a police vehicle….can’t get much more “violent” than attempted murder. This has nothing to do with “car replacement” and removal of this threat to society was a blessing…..he should of considered the consequences prior to getting involved in this criminal enterprise. Go try this for yourself and you should logically expect to end up in the morgue as well.

        Reply this comment
    • Bob 5 August, 2016, 22:18

      To say you’re a criminally stupid pissant is too easy. The police cannot shoot you for committing a felony no matter how much you want them to. You’re obviously one of the bad race relations proponents. Here’s a tip: one of those cops is headed for prison where he will be raped for years

      Reply this comment
    • dennis 6 August, 2016, 09:29

      I thought he tried to run over the officers. If your ram their vehicle they have a right to defend themselves.

      Reply this comment
    • Gee 6 August, 2016, 10:28

      For all criminals out there planning to steal a car in Chicago, assume you will be shot by police as a new rule. Thus, make sure you are wearing your body armor when stealing a car or if not, make sure you already have written suicide note in case you are caught and shot.

      Reply this comment
    • Nick 7 August, 2016, 09:33

      There was no reason for the initial shots fired by the police that I saw in this video. The first thing to note is that the officer was firing rounds into what is obviously a populated residential area and endangering the lives of people doing nothing illegal.
      There is no indication that the suspect had a gun, and it appears to me that they are creating a story. Where is the gun? Is there evidence he had a gun?
      The police, as I’ve said a number of times are not trained as they should be. I know from dealing with many police that some are as cool as can be because they mentally and physically condition themselves. I personally know someone who has disarmed a few people, but only once had to draw his weapon, took up cover, and as should be the suspect dropped the weapon. Cool! Not panicked or fabricating a story.
      This makes me sick that we have police like this on the streets.

      Reply this comment
    • Obamalinsky 11 August, 2016, 12:33

      I wonder if the police have finally decided to start killing randomly in the black community and once the ensuing protests, riots and massive civil unrest begin, they just pull back and let the carnage ensue? Like the LAPD did during the Rodney King riots.
      I’m not a big conspiracy guy, but is it possible that agent provocateurs have been planted on both sides? In the BLM, other various ‘civil rights’ groups and big city police departments to bring about martial law, suspension of habeas corpus and nullification of the second amendment. COINTELPRO on steroids, designed to bring chaos, strife and conflagration from multiple directions?
      Lets hope cooler heads prevail as it’s getting harder and harder to tell just who the enemy is anymore.
      In light of all that’s happened over the last month, one things for sure. This kid picked the wrong week to commit a major felony and try to run over a policeman.

      Reply this comment
      • Elias Alias 11 August, 2016, 13:31

        I corrected your spelling of “martial law”. It is very common to see it spelled “marshal law”, but that is incorrect. I am pointing that out not to just single you out for mis-spelling, but for the many other readers here whom I see spelling it incorrectly. It’s “martial law”.
        Thanks for reading and posting here,
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor

        Reply this comment
  2. Frank95054 5 August, 2016, 16:11

    Looks like a black policeman shot a black thug! Move on, nothing to see here!

    Reply this comment
  3. Blacksheep 5 August, 2016, 16:39

    He may have been unarmed, but using a vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon when trying to run over someone. This kid tried to run over cop one as he got out of his car, ran head long into the second responding car. I’d call that a justified shoot.

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 17:25

      You are correct that they can possibly justify shooting at him while he is using the car as a weapon, but they can’t fire on him once he gets out of the car and runs on foot, unless you can articulate some reasonable belief that he still posed a lethal and immediate threat to life. Running away from the scene doesn’t cut it. There is very well established caselaw on this. And well established police use of force policy.

      Reply this comment
  4. NunyaBusiness 5 August, 2016, 17:51

    In the current court system there is no justice. If he actually was given a trial by his peers he would be let go with zero punishment since most of his peers think “he dindo nuffin wrong”.
    Plus this animal would have been out on parole within days to commit other crimes while awaiting trial. The police may not have been right in delivering his sentence, but he received the sentence he deserved.

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 18:09

      Problem is, if you allow police to gun down unarmed fleeing thieves, because you think they deserve it, that will open the door to the police shooting other people THEY think deserve it, not because they are a direct threat to anyone, and you cross over into “death squad” territory where police just shoot people they think are “dirty” and skip the whole due process thing. That is not a country I want to leave to my children, where they can be shot and killed by the cops whenever a cop thinks my kids are “bad people” for whatever reason.

      Cops have a duty to apprehend and then leave the question of guilt and punishment to the jury, as our Constitution requires. They, nor you, get to reinvent our Constitution to wipe out that requirement of a trial by our peers, and give cops the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. They can only use lethal force to stop an immediate, real threat to life. That is it. As is required by our Constitution, which we all swore to defend.

      What about the cowboy LaVoy Finicum, who didn’t even have a speeding ticket on his record? He fled from the police. He also nearly ran over a cop while trying to go around a roadblock, but got stuck in the snow. Did that mean the cops had a right to just shoot him after he got stuck in the snow, where he was obviously not able to use his vehicle to endanger anyone? Did that make it OK for the FBI to fire at him as soon as he got out of his truck, while he had his hands in the air? (a fact that was not initially known, because the FBI agents tried to cover it up at first)? Put the shoe on YOUR foot. What if it happened to someone in your family who was accused of doing something and fled from the police? Just smoke em? Kill em all and let God sort em out?

      Reply this comment
      • coyote 5 August, 2016, 18:49

        Thank you for keeping LaVoy Finicum’s murder by the police state in our attention. Your summation of the facts in that instance, and what seems to have happened to this young black man, again point out that there are many – FAR too many- bad apples in the LEO community. This problem must be corrected before other folks besides “black lives matter” killers are joined by others who take indiscriminate vigilante “justice” on innocent police officers.

        Reply this comment
        • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 22:58

          Coyote, you raise a vital point. “This problem must be corrected before other folks besides “black lives matter” killers are joined by others who take indiscriminate vigilante “justice” on innocent police officers.”

          The police MUST clean the bad apples out of their own ranks (purge out the “bullies, sloths, and dullards” that John Karriman talked about). And if they don’t, they do indeed risk a high likelyhood that attacks on police will spread out beyond the ranks of Black Lives Matters followers, New Black Panther followers, etc. and will spread into the far larger, and far more deadly, pool of infantry veterans. I see that coming. It is something I want to stop from happening, but that WILL require the police to police their own ranks.

          Stewart

          Reply this comment
  5. James M 5 August, 2016, 17:51

    If the the LEO’s had not responded the way they did and the car thief had kicked the door into one of those houses, took hostages and killed them then they’d be saying the LEO’s didn’t do their job.People that steal cars and then don’t surrender when caught are responsible for the results of their actions/inactions. Great job Officers!!!

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 18:00

      Well, if you shot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back, under the exact same circumstances, and your only answer was “he could have hurt someone else” and you have nothing else to meet the reasonable man standard of having a reasonable belief he was a threat to others other than the facts as known so far, you would be convicted of manslaughter or murder. Just a fact.

      Reply this comment
      • Thinker 6 August, 2016, 22:49

        This is the crux of the entire debate over police shooting people who pose no immediate threat… there is ONE Rule of Law under the Constitution and if we waive those rules for police officers, elected officials, military personnel or anyone else (including felons of certain race/ethnicity, gender, etc.) then we are headed for some extremely dangerous territory.

        As you said earlier, Stewart, the Founders were brilliant men who understood how governments have, throughout history, allowed two sets of laws for the elite and for the peasants. They understood no man can be fully equal until the laws governing him are equal for all men. Otherwise, we are nothing but slaves.

        This may be a case of a young, black kid committing a crime now, but wait until it hits a little closer to home — killing someone for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, or right to worship their religion, or right to speak their mind. People seem to think none of that can happen, but it has, again and again and again, throughout history. Humankind does not change.

        Reply this comment
    • csaaphill 5 August, 2016, 20:37

      What if What if crap BS Suppose you answer how an unarmed kid is to hold people hostage?
      lot of fricking what if’s.

      Reply this comment
  6. BillyDe 5 August, 2016, 18:01

    Paul O-Neil’s sister just said on CNN, “He was loved by his family, me and his mother.” What about the baby daddy? Huh?

    Reply this comment
  7. Mindy 5 August, 2016, 18:20

    This was not murder. There was chaos , created by 2 thugs. I fully expected to see cops gun down some kid in cold blood. The parents , though my heart goes out to them, are wrong in pursuing any criminal charges. Their son brought this down on his own head , he sought to harm others, it backfired. I do see that the police are not being adequately trained, this is not their fault. I say this because they did not keep their heads on straight, they did panic. I also did not see a cop car hit the thugs, I saw the thugs hit a cop car. As far as a dog running away, a dog doesn’t steal cars and then try to mow down cops and then try to run away on foot. A dog wouldn’t know to stop because he had committed a crime. So is the lawyer saying the iq of the thugs was that of a dog’s?

    Reply this comment
  8. Spike 5 August, 2016, 18:29

    They had the road blocked could shoot out the tires pit them with you’re car. Last resort kill him if need be. There shouldn’t be any riots at all you do dumb shit like this kid you pay.

    Don’t steal cars go get a [One word deleted by Elias Alias, editor] job. No welfare for you.

    Reply this comment
  9. Dann-0 5 August, 2016, 19:18

    Another Police shooting involving a Black subject. If a white suspect is killed by a Police Officer it doesn’t make the News ..Too many negatives brought to the forefront by the Media.. Instead of marching & protesting in all the major cities. Protesters should volunteer to do a tour or shift with Police Officers and see 1st hand what they have to deal with. .They may not be to quick to condemn the Police.. Dan O…

    Reply this comment
  10. 5WarVeteran 5 August, 2016, 19:42

    It is time there are harsher punishment to crimes. Call me cold, call me a mother effer I do not care. Repeat criminals need to be ended.
    Criminals in general need to see they will no longer be coddled.

    Reply this comment
  11. Varian Sol 5 August, 2016, 20:37

    When government is a100% Corrupt, Totalitarian, Rule-By-The-Few-For-The-Benefit-Of-The-Few-Only, Police-State, that is oppressing, impoverishing, and murdering citizens, the police are the frontline protectors, defenders, enforcers of that government, [Forty-four words deleted by Elias Alias, editor]

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 5 August, 2016, 23:11

      Varian, posts advocating unlawful violence against ANYONE will be deleted, or at least edited out like Elias just did. We don’t censor, but we also don’t publish advocacy and incitement to unlawful violence, which is not protected speech.

      I do recognize the great anger out there against police, and the fact that an alarming number of Americans, across the political and racial spectrum, now see police as illegitimate oppressors. As I said above, the police need to clean up their act and come back into obedience of the Constitution, and if they don’t, violence against them will spread, but what you advocated is utterly immoral and indefensible and will not be published here. – Stewart

      Reply this comment
    • Cal 6 August, 2016, 10:15

      Varian Sol, Those that serve within our governments are not “00% corrupt”. It is important to realize that many are just unaware of what our legitimate government is, what they are allowed to do, must do, forbidden to do, and allowed to do ONLY in certain put-into-writing circumstances and ONLY in specific put-in-writing ways.

      What we have is an uneducated government, and they do NOT even know the contract that they are Oath bound to. That is what makes them dangerous and makes people NOT trust them (even though the people themselves are mostly ignorant). When someone else tells you what is the “law”, what you can or cannot do, particularly when it is an officer above one or the “courts” it makes it very easy to get people who serve within the enforcement agencies to do things that are “color of law” but NOT lawful, even to commit treason and *terrorism unknowingly.

      That is the problem. The US Constitution is the supreme law of this land and ALL enforcement is REQUIRED to take and KEEP an Oath to support and defend it above and before anything else including orders of superiors or presidents, and the duties of the position they occupy. That does include ALL who serve within our governments, not just the enforcement parts.

      OK is doing what it can to dispel the ignorance so that they will NO LONGER assist in the destruction of our nation, so that they will no longer allow themselves and the position they are in to be USED against our nation, to destroy our legitimate government.

      I know at times it seems all are involved, but they are not.

      Reply this comment
  12. Roger D 6 August, 2016, 02:43

    Since Rahm Emmanuel is Obama’s boy and mayor of Chicago, why can’t this be put on his plate since he is the one ultimately in charge of that city and I assume also of the police department. The Chicago Tribune said that there were 69 shootings in Chicago over the memorial day weekend. Can’t this mayor not be held somewhat accountable for those deaths? Since their citizens cannot easily obtain a weapon to defend themselves because of Emmanuel’s mindset, can someone put these two problems on his doorstep?

    Reply this comment
  13. csaaphill 6 August, 2016, 05:23

    scripture does say that in the end times peoples love for one another would wax/grow cold.
    that includes the cops and looks like the comments I’ve seen here.

    Reply this comment
  14. csaaphill 6 August, 2016, 05:28

    Also did anyone catch that as the cop exited the car he points his weapon towards his own partner or one of the other cops? what if he had hit him?
    But to warn as I need to
    Revelations talks about a number and that number is 666. or it says it’s a number of a man and his number is 666 but look back it first kings where it talks about Solomon’s tax Collection. 1st Kings verse ten I Believe or somewhere close. It says int that year the gold collected was 666 Taxes And Romans 13 was mistranslated. http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=83179.0
    Think I may have posted that before but doing so again if I hadn’t.

    Reply this comment
  15. LJP 6 August, 2016, 05:58

    Stewart Rhodes, very awesome responses. You are a true constitutionalist and that is to be respected in this climate of bigotry and justifiable hate which, as we see from many of your commenters, allows citizens to pass judgment over the lives of others citizens as if dare I say it, those lives don’t matter.
    A car thief should not be doomed to death. Teenagers make mistakes but with the right opportunities and focus they can get their lives in order. I know that personally. Cops shouldn’t have the right to deny citizens the chance to get their lives in order by arbitrarily killing citizens.

    Reply this comment
  16. Navy Jack Author 6 August, 2016, 06:08

    I have watched all of the videos released. The 4-5 shots following Mr. O’Neil exiting the vehicle can be heard, but the individual shooting is not seen. Most likely these 4-5 shots are from a single officer based on the timing. Because the shots are not seen, they almost certainly came from an officer that is down the road and possibly in the line of fire as the Jaguar attempts to run the initial roadblock. Following the altercation, numerous officers make statements that they are not sure who was initially firing.

    Any argument that O’Neil did not first use deadly force in the pursuit is inaccurate. Clearly he intended to escape at any cost, even if it meant killing an officer with the vehicle. If one of the shots made prior to or as O’Neil exited the vehicle is determined to be the one that killed him; then the officers will eventually be cleared. If one of the shots fired after he cleared the vehicle is determined to be the cause of death, as is speculated by the family, then that officer will have to make the case as to why deadly force was used on a fleeing suspect. In either case, the officer who fired those 4-5 shots will be required to justify their actions.

    We all know NOW that O’Neil was unarmed. During the altercation, this was not at all clear to the officers. The officers heard bullets whizzing by them, unsure of the source. These statements and the obvious confusion are clearly heard on the various body cams.

    There is a significant difference between officers making a huge mistake, like firing at the fleeing vehicle with other officers down- range, and committing an unlawful act. Assuming that the fatal shot(s) came after Mr. O’Neil cleared the vehicle, this will come down to the reasonable officer standard of whether a “reasonable officer could have perceived that the shots being fired at them were being fired by the suspect”. This will be resolved by analysis of that officer’s point of view and whether that officer had visibility of the suspect’s hands and/or the officers actually firing the shots at the fleeing vehicle. I plan to wait on the release of the ballistics report before commenting further.

    The point of this article was not to determine if the officers were justified in their actions. Due-process, especially in the current Black Lives Matter environment will accomplish that goal. The point of the article was to warn police officers of a potential threat to their safety based on these events.

    Also, it is not at all clear that everyone commenting on this article understands or accepts that it was Mr. O’Neil that placed everyone’s life in danger because of his reckless acts. Mr. O’Neil is dead a result of actions he alone precipitated. He was unwilling to accept arrest and used the vehicle as a weapon in his effort to avoid arrest. While in the end, his death may prove to be unjustified and possibly even murder, it is important for everyone to step back and remember that he made the choice to steal the vehicle. He made the choice to avoid arrest and placed police officers lives in danger with his actions. He alone made the choices that started the chain of events that in the end proved fatal.

    Just to be clear, I am not saying the shooting following Mr. O’Neil clearing the vehicle was justified or unjustified. I am not defending any officers’ actions. I am stating the facts of the case as they are known so far. I will be patient and wait for the autopsy, ballistics report and due-process to make the final determination.

    Reply this comment
  17. Jerry 6 August, 2016, 10:38

    All of you are right and all of you are wrong. WAIT FOR THE FACTS!

    Reply this comment
    • Vinny 6 August, 2016, 12:10

      FACTS !……Fact: this lawless thug attempted to run the cops down, crashed the Jaguar head on into a police vehicle, jumped out and ran. Those are facts. How can anyone believe that if you put yourself in that position, that you can escape alive ? That is a fact ! I do not condone police brutality nor the excessive use of force, however, do what this fool just did and you must expect the same result !

      Reply this comment
  18. Yoda 6 August, 2016, 11:20

    It was a cluster bomb. In his attempt to get away, the perp struck a police vehicle with officer on board. At that point, what does police SOP and training direct in terms of police reaction? Does it direct officers to pull their weapons and fire upon the perp? I do not know so I am asking. Everything got real stupid once those first shots were fired. It is my opinion that hitting the police car in an attempt to get away does not reveal a clear intent to cause harm to the officer in the car. If it does, according to SOP and training, the public should be made aware of it. Was the officer who fired the first shots following police SOP? If he was, that’s pretty scary in my book. Of course, we know now that shots were unnecessary. I would hope that all of the officers involved would at least acknowledge that fact. All except for the first officer who shot were reacting to shots fired. Automatic assessment of intent in this case is very questionable in my view. There is no doubt in my mind that when the perp exited the vehicle, he was consumed with fear and running for his life. The result stems from the action of the first officer firing shots. So, according to SOP and training, were his actions justified?

    Reply this comment
  19. Cal 6 August, 2016, 11:26

    “The 4-5 shots following Mr. O’Neil exiting the vehicle can be heard, but the individual shooting is not seen.”

    First Video, when the officers stop their car IN FRONT of the fleeing individual and leave the relative safety of their vehicle to jump out in front of the fleeing vehicle (no safe for anyone) and the one with the body cam is shooting as the vehicle approaches (at or about 1:15), and still shooting as it leaves. Obviously he is greatly skilled with the weapon he uses because his partner was also standing for a moment in time, plus the homes behind the partner, directly in front of where he was shooting. Though from what I can see, if you stop it and move the video slowly forward you can see he is aiming more downward at the car passing. This is all in a residential area with homes all around including in the direction where he was firing. Later in the video he also says he shot at the car.

    “Clearly he intended to escape at any cost, even if it meant killing an officer with the vehicle.”

    If that was true all he had to do was accelerate the stolen vehicle and one of those officers, if not both, would have been injured. Instead it looks to me as if he braked, swerved, and then accelerated the stolen vehicle, but it might be reflection on the back brake lights as it was a clear and sunny day and they were not in the shade.

    “There is a significant difference between officers making a huge mistake, like firing at the fleeing vehicle with other officers down- range, and committing an unlawful act.”

    Plus “this will come down to the reasonable officer standard of whether a “reasonable officer could have perceived that the shots being fired at them were being fired by the suspect”.”

    I agree with the first statement. I am sorry, but here in the USA it is the LAWFUL standard is this is what a reasonable person would do, and TRAINED LE’s are supposed to be held to a bit stricter standard. I know that today many officers do get by with literal murder. If a person had been shooting as that officer had (homes in the direction of his fire, his own partner standing in the line of fire, etc) I believe you would not be saying that, in fact, I believe that you would have been advocating for the person standing there firing the weapon so indiscriminately, seemingly unaware that he is in a residence or that his partner is in the direction he is firing, EVERYONE here would have been saying that an armed citizen or officer should have taken him out as he was a danger to all.

    I can see where the vehicle problem was, and the actions taken there MIGHT be lawful. but to assassinate (as obama does) someone running away has no LAWFUL justification in the USA under our LEGITIMATE government. So, if you are keeping your Oath, you are unaware of what the Bill of Rights are, and what the US Constitution REQUIRES of us, particularly the trained.

    “I have worked diligently to defend the Bill of Rights and have testified many times before various legislative committees” (from your About author segment).

    How can you have worked diligently to defend the Bill of Rights when it seems as if you do not recognize them when you see them? Also, what did you testify about before those legislative committees? If it seems as if I am “coming after you, wanting to justify your positions, I am. If you want to know why
    ” I participated in expeditionary and humanitarian missions to the North Atlantic, Iran, Beirut, Libya, and the Caribbean. After leaving the U.S. Navy I went to work for a fairly large DoD contrator. I became President of that company in 1993.”

    You had to do a lot against the USA in order to become the “President of that company.” Yet, there is no remorse. Then when you write, you write about the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as those who serve within our government do – as the dumbed down and willing dupes do that are used against our nation, with an OCCASIONAL light of real constitutionalism slipped in occasionally. I worry that you are here to cause dissension in OK, put here to divide and conquer an organization that has been having a decent outcome UNTIL you came. Now there is more strife instead of learning. So, if you really are here as Stewart’s friend, LEARN the US Constitution as it was created and is still required to be enforced, as YOU are Oath sworn to in every single one of those things mentioned (each required you to swear an Oath again, to KEEP that Oath again, when you changed positions within and as a supplier to, the US Government. I am not seeing that, or even an attempt at that. Does anyone else see this, or ???

    Again, talk to Dr. Vieira, he is well versed in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Reply this comment
    • Navy Jack Author 6 August, 2016, 16:32

      Cal – I did not make the laws or the standards that these officers are using. I am not endorsing these laws/standards. I am just presenting the facts. I am sure the City of Chicago would appreciate your expert insight. Please feel free to give them a call. As for the 4-5 shots that are heard AFTER O’Neil exits the vehicle, if anyone can find a video where the officer responsible for these shots is shown firing, I would love to see it. As for the sequence where O’Neil runs through the roadblock, what matters is his intentional reckless endangerment of the officers in his effort to escape. What matters is that he could and should have stopped, surrendered and avoided the escalation of the event. He didn’t.

      Reply this comment
      • Vinny 7 August, 2016, 11:13

        Navy Jack….great comments from start to finish…..the guy invited a trip to the morgue, and received it as requested. Anyone, anywhere, that repeats this sequence should fully expect that same trip to the morgue…..pure and simple American “common sense” !!

        Reply this comment
        • Navy Jack Author 7 August, 2016, 18:14

          Vinny – If Mr. O’Neil was shot in the back after clearing the vehicle, as the family suspects, I would not support the officer’s actions. As I said in my earlier post, I will be patient and wait for the autopsy, ballistics report and due-process to make the final determination.

          Reply this comment
  20. WHAT NOW 6 August, 2016, 14:38

    Hello Navy Jack, please to an article regarding the News Links below. THANKS

    GADSDEN FLAG UNDER ATTACK -US GOV at EEOC.

    Everything this country was founded on, symbolized is under attack and many times declared Domestic Terrorism.

    Coppied the following message and links for from GADSEDN & CUPLER site http://www.gadsdenandculpeper.com/gadsden-classics.html?utm_source=cactusconnect&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featured&utm_campaign=8.6.16

    Since 2001. We are the Original Don’t Tread on Me Outfitters. Thank you for your support.

    FREE 4×6 Heavy Duty Gadsden Car Magnet with every purchase Ends Sunday 12 Noon Est

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/05/federal-agency-says-wearing-dont-tread-on-me-hat-could-be-racial-harassment.html

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-05/eeoc-harassment-ruling-on-gadsden-flag-is-right?cmpid=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/03/wearing-dont-tread-on-me-insignia-could-be-punishable-racial-harassment/

    Reply this comment
  21. Greg K 6 August, 2016, 17:49

    The 3rd most disturbing thing about this is that “they were acting according to Policy.” What does the Law say about this? I know what my Constitution says.

    The 2nd most disturbing thing about this is, once again we see lazy, scared folk with guns serving in a protective force situation. How many more times are we going to find out the police showed up on a tip, or SWAT showed up at the wrong address and shot a home owner, before we awaken to the real problem, which is the 1st most disturbing.

    It’s the Politicians, not the cops that are the disease. The bad cops, not the good ones, are making a mockery of the system by being weak, yes men. Who are they saying yes to? The Politicians that are enabling their bad behavior.

    All I know is, this guy didn’t get his day in court. He may have a record of violence that played into his death. What needs to happen is that the Good Cops need to start speaking out on the bad shoots. We need to back their play. Period! This mayhem between citizen and police, which has been instigated by the politicians is “No Buena!” It doesn’t end well for humanity in general, so it’s time to right our course…….

    Reply this comment
  22. Navy Jack Author 7 August, 2016, 15:02

    Just so we are all on the same page; the U.S. Constitution, including subsequent amendments, is silent regarding the use of deadly force by a police officer in the execution of a warrant or an arrest. All case law regarding the use of deadly force by a police officer in the execution of a warrant or an arrest is subject to the 4th Amendment:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).

    The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)). With regard to vehicle chase situations, the U.S. Supreme Court has “never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the 4th Amendment.” (Chadrin Lee Mullenix V. Beatrice Luna, 577 U. S. (2015)).

    The law in the State of Illinois regarding police use of deadly force in an arrest or execution of a warrant is as follows:

    Sec. 7-5. Peace officer’s use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
    (1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
    (2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
    (b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
    (Source: P.A. 84-1426.)

    Reply this comment
  23. lc65 8 August, 2016, 09:24

    “…Police nationwide have been on high alert since a sniper killed five officers during a Black Lives Matter protest on July 7 and another three officers were gunned down in Baton Rouge, Louisiana only 10 days later…..”
    Too bad they haven’t been on ” GOOD BEHAVIOR ” ! Apparently they are incapable. or more likely, have not been taught what good behavior is.
    The problem as I see it, is that they are just doing what they have been trained to do. Shoot first, ask questions later.
    If you are scared, SHOOT !!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*