Another police murder of a wounded unarmed man who had been shot by another man in road rage incident

Squire

Active member
Austin police murdered this man.

The victim had not committed any crime and was in fact a victim of crime.

The victim was already wounded and was attempting to help his female partner, and child, who was wounded in the road rage incident and the police murdered him with 10 bullets.

US police are too eager to kill without cause.

I personally believe that US police have a policy of 'burying their mistakes' on the basis that dead men can't be witnesses.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aus...olice-shooting-man-killed-in-front-of-family/

"“He’s clearly wounded,” Gonzales family attorney Scott Hendler said of Gonzales following Gutierrez shooting at him in traffic. “The officers responding know that he’s bleeding because [Gutierrez] reported to the dispatcher, ‘He’s got blood on his face.’”

“He can be seen walking very unsteadily toward the back of the car using the car to hold him up. You can see him walk behind the car. He has no weapon in his hand. He doesn’t brandish a weapon. He doesn’t have anything in his hand. He doesn’t point anything at the officers.”

APD bodycam and dashcam footage shows officers gave Gonzales multiple commands to stop and not to reach that he did not follow. Eyewitness video from the scene corroborated this. You can see and hear officers telling Gonzales to stop, but he kept walking.

“He walks to the other side of the vehicle where his girlfriend and the mother of his child is lying on the ground, wounded, to check on her,” Hendler said. “She asks him to check on the baby. He then opens the back door to look in and leans in to check on the baby, and that’s when he’s shot.”

The family says Gonzales was shot 10 times. Dashcam video confirms there were 10 gunshots, but police have only said Gonzales was shot multiple times."
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Rule #1 .... Obey the Law, which includes a direct order from the police. The consequences for ignoring Rule #1 can be catastrophic.

They never learn.........C'est la vie


 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
⮞ They, the police, do obey the law......Under the legal standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court, police officers can be legally justified in using force if they merely perceive a threat, even if a threat isn’t there. ⮜

The Multi-Million Dollar payments are called "Free-Shaddup-Money", courtesy of the public.........Everything, & everybody has a price......the money, if enough, shuts ignent big ass mouths if ya hit da rite numba!


Source: MSN
........Under the legal standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court, police officers can be legally justified in using force if they merely perceive a threat, even if a threat isn’t there. State laws can vary, but in general the legal question comes down to whether the officer acted reasonably — in a way other officers would in similar situations, without the benefit of hindsight — which can easily be interpreted by prosecutors, judges, or juries to allow cops to use force in situations in which they didn’t really need to.........
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
Now we are seeing huge payouts and prosecutions of police. The public has had enough of police shoot to kill mentality, especially the police racist attitude to black people.
 
Last edited:

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Clearly the Police in the US are shit scared of the public. So very afraid, it should be obvious to all.

Anyone could have a gun, and fear doesn't rationalise.. it shoots to kill.

I will say it again... the POLICE are so scared of the populace, many of whom are people of colour, that they shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

Not a good thing FOR ANYONE.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I wonder if a legally armed Black American can make a case, for shooting a cop at a traffic stop? Claiming, that he was in fear of losing his life, when he thought the cop was reaching for his gun? Or, if an armed witness shoots a cop, for shooting a 12 yo kid threatening other kids in the schoolyard with spiked nunchucks?

Shouldn't the public also have a right of self-defense? Especially, if you are Black(or Hispanic), and make any wrong moves. Can anyone see where this slippery slope can lead?
 

Squire

Active member
The demand by US police that people get out of their car at traffic stops is a major source of conflict between police and their victims. Why don't the police just hand the victim a traffic offense ticket instead of initiating a violent confrontation.

The other violent act by police when arresting people is to compel or violently force them to lie on the ground with their hands behind their backs. There is no need for this when the victim is not resisting and if indeed the victim has done nothing and is arrested for resisting the police in a bogus police stop.

The crime of resisting the police should be taken off the statue books when the detainee has not committed an offense prior to resisting the police. It is only human for people to resist unjustified oppression by being arrested just because the police choose to do so.

Lies by police in their police reports should also be a crime. Whenever a cop makes a false statement that is criminal defamation and the cop should be prosecuted.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The demand by US police that people get out of their car at traffic stops is a major source of conflict between police and their victims. Why don't the police just hand the victim a traffic offense ticket instead of initiating a violent confrontation.
In most traffic stops, the driver does NOT need to get out of their vehicles. But if the officer perceives that a crime has been committed(smells alcohol, drugs, the person is wanted, sees something out of place, or a weapon, etc.), he may ask for everyone out of the vehicle. Even if the officer feels uncomfortable, he can ask everyone out of the vehicle. If you have a license to drive, you must obey all commands by a police officer while operating a motor vehicle.

Police can only pull over a vehicle that appeared defective, or if they believed that the driver had or was committing a crime, or a breach of the road rules.

Putting people on the ground, is done for the safety of the officer. Or, prior to an arrest.

Making a false report, or making false and misleading statements is an offense. Unfortunately, these things are dealt with in-house.

I'm just waiting for the case of "armed Black man shoots armed White cop", because he was in fear of his life(self-defense).

Back in the day, cops behaved like one of us. They were personally known, and respected as part of the community. Even the kids know them by name. They were personable, trusted, and knew everybody in the community. If you were shot by one of these cops, the entire community(and the victims relatives), would know that you must have deserved it.

Todays cops, eat, shits, and breathes only blue. People are just "them". If they don't do what we say, "shoot 'em". If they try to run, or resist arrest, "shoot 'em". If they are a child, or female attacking someone with a lethal weapon(not a gun), just "shoot 'em". Even if they are unarmed, in cuffs, and on the ground, "choke 'em out" until they're dead. These are the rules for cowards, with power, in uniform.

Eventually, parents friends and loved ones of this victims of police violence, will start fighting back. The message should be, that if you are NOT going to police your own, then we will.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
In most traffic stops, the driver does NOT need to get out of their vehicles. But if the officer perceives that a crime has been committed(smells alcohol, drugs, the person is wanted, sees something out of place, or a weapon, etc.), he may ask for everyone out of the vehicle. Even if the officer feels uncomfortable, he can ask everyone out of the vehicle. If you have a license to drive, you must obey all commands by a police officer while operating a motor vehicle.

Police can only pull over a vehicle that appeared defective, or if they believed that the driver had or was committing a crime, or a breach of the road rules.

Putting people on the ground, is done for the safety of the officer. Or, prior to an arrest.

Making a false report, or making false and misleading statements is an offense. Unfortunately, these things are dealt with in-house.

I'm just waiting for the case of "armed Black man shoots armed White cop", because he was in fear of his life(self-defense).

Back in the day, cops behaved like one of us. They were personally known, and respected as part of the community. Even the kids know them by name. They were personable, trusted, and knew everybody in the community. If you were shot by one of these cops, the entire community(and the victims relatives), would know that you must have deserved it.

Todays cops, eat, shits, and breathes only blue. People are just "them". If they don't do what we say, "shoot 'em". If they try to run, or resist arrest, "shoot 'em". If they are a child, or female attacking someone with a lethal weapon(not a gun), just "shoot 'em". Even if they are unarmed, in cuffs, and on the ground, "choke 'em out" until they're dead. These are the rules for cowards, with power, in uniform.

Eventually, parents friends and loved ones of this victims of police violence, will start fighting back. The message should be, that if you are NOT going to police your own, then we will.
It depends on state laws.

An officer may ask someone to get out of a car if they are not under arrest. But that is a request, not an order. At least, in Oregon that is the case. Perhaps it is different in other states. But clearly, when someone is pulled over for a mere traffic infraction, and the officer directs the person to get out of the vehicle, there should be a legitimate reason to take this contact from a mere traffic infraction stop to something more serious.

And I think you've got a lot wrong. Back in the day, the cops covered for each other more than they do in the present. Back in the day, cops could get away with an awful lot more than they can in the present. Back in the day, excessive force was winked at, and complaints about police conduct were met with stony silence, denial, and inaction. Times have changed.

And you are wrong about what you describe as a malicious, murderous culture of police. You have been out of it for a long time, and you're either remembering some bad cops you knew, or you're getting influenced by the media, politicians, and pressure groups. There will always be bad apples like Derek Chauvin, but the barrel is almost full of good apples.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
An officer may ask someone to get out of a car if they are not under arrest. But that is a request, not an order. At least, in Oregon that is the case. Perhaps it is different in other states. But clearly, when someone is pulled over for a mere traffic infraction, and the officer directs the person to get out of the vehicle, there should be a legitimate reason to take this contact from a mere traffic infraction stop to something more serious.
Seth, we both know that when an officer "asks" someone to do something, no one would think that the officer is just "requesting" that they do something. Regardless, of what state you are in.

We both know that there is no law that requires any person in the US to carry any kind of ID on them. The exception being, when operating a motor vehicle.

Do people know, that they don't have to identify themself, or even give the police their name when "requested"? All a person has to say is, "Are you detaining me, or am I free to leave?". Since you don't know what the cop's probable cause is, this is the test. If he says no you are not being detained, then you are free to leave. Without answering any questions. If he says yes you are being detained(arrested), then you are required(in some states) to identify yourself, or even give your name. But no states require its citizens to carry "their papers" with them. This is not the Reichstag!

The officer must have a reason for the stop. But we both know that having a reason can be just a formality. A little creative writing in the incident narrative, should avoid most scrutiny. We both know that there are many ways how a simple traffic stop, can end-up with the occupants lying prone on the ground. So I won't insult you.

And I think you've got a lot wrong. Back in the day, the cops covered for each other more than they do in the present. Back in the day, cops could get away with an awful lot more than they can in the present. Back in the day, excessive force was winked at, and complaints about police conduct were met with stony silence, denial, and inaction. Times have changed.
Totally agree with this Seth. Cops did get away with a lot back in the day. But, we all knew just how far we could go, and get away with it. Knowing killing an unarmed suspect, made you look like a trigger-happy coward back then. Back then, there was an unwritten rule to how far you could go in tuning up a suspect(street justice). How far you could go in haseling Gays, Blacks, and Latinos. We certainly were smart enough NOT kill an unarmed suspects, in front of civilian witnesses with smartphones, on national television, wearing a body cam, or in front of a vehicle cam. And, we certainly would never use mistaken equipment error as an excuse. Granted, none of these technologies exist back then.

Are you conflating police misconduct with involuntary homicide, Seth? Even back then, killing any unarmed suspects(though very few), was a big event. In my 15 year in the department, I only knew of one case where a cop got away with it. Of course, no one wanted to ride with him. Remember, he could shoot you as well. In either case, it was certainly not televised or shown over the internet.

Also, cop in those days, knew what happens to cops who were sent to prison. They were incentivised to not become part of the prison population.

"..you describe as a malicious, murderous culture of police.". I said, or characterized police as this? If I have given you the impression that ALL cops are vicious, malicious, and murderous, then I apologize. I worked in the Crime Specific Task Force(White Night Riots, Saint Paddy's Day Parade, Gay Night Riots, Market Street Sniper, Zebra Murders, etc), also the Street Crime Unit(car and body decoy operations), and in Narcotics(drug busts, a user and a buyer), and in my last two years, in a uniform out in the stations.

I remember one time being so afraid lying in a smelly doorway with a wallet hanging out of my pocket. A week earlier, another decoy was shot in the head by an addict. I shit myself after my pocket was picked. I remember making a buy at the 500 block of Haight St. Even though my cover had been blown by my own cousin, I still went out to make buys. I started shaking like a leaf when I noticed 2 guys in suits walking towards me. Luckily, they never slowed down. How many times have I thought it was over for me, in my life! I was very busy in the department.

So, when I hear these stories involving fear and self defense from unarmed suspects, I certainly would have behaved differently. Unfortunately, no one knows how they will behave when they are truly shit scared and confused. That takes experience. Is this how SOME of today's cops deal with unarmed citizens? So, yes we old boys did stretch the letter of the law a bit, but this did not include KILLING UNARMED PEOPLE! Here's a question. You have 2,000 angry unarmed Gays coming at you. Would you fire your weapon, run like the wind, or some other action?

I wonder how many unarmed shootings occur in Australia?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, we both know that when an officer "asks" someone to do something, no one would think that the officer is just "requesting" that they do something. Regardless, of what state you are in.

We both know that there is no law that requires any person in the US to carry any kind of ID on them. The exception being, when operating a motor vehicle.

Do people know, that they don't have to identify themself, or even give the police their name when "requested"? All a person has to say is, "Are you detaining me, or am I free to leave?". Since you don't know what the cop's probable cause is, this is the test. If he says no you are not being detained, then you are free to leave. Without answering any questions. If he says yes you are being detained(arrested), then you are required(in some states) to identify yourself, or even give your name. But no states require its citizens to carry "their papers" with them. This is not the Reichstag!

The officer must have a reason for the stop. But we both know that having a reason can be just a formality. A little creative writing in the incident narrative, should avoid most scrutiny. We both know that there are many ways how a simple traffic stop, can end-up with the occupants lying prone on the ground. So I won't insult you.



Totally agree with this Seth. Cops did get away with a lot back in the day. But, we all knew just how far we could go, and get away with it. Knowing killing an unarmed suspect, made you look like a trigger-happy coward back then. Back then, there was an unwritten rule to how far you could go in tuning up a suspect(street justice). How far you could go in haseling Gays, Blacks, and Latinos. We certainly were smart enough NOT kill an unarmed suspects, in front of civilian witnesses with smartphones, on national television, wearing a body cam, or in front of a vehicle cam. And, we certainly would never use mistaken equipment error as an excuse. Granted, none of these technologies exist back then.

Are you conflating police misconduct with involuntary homicide, Seth? Even back then, killing any unarmed suspects(though very few), was a big event. In my 15 year in the department, I only knew of one case where a cop got away with it. Of course, no one wanted to ride with him. Remember, he could shoot you as well. In either case, it was certainly not televised or shown over the internet.

Also, cop in those days, knew what happens to cops who were sent to prison. They were incentivised to not become part of the prison population.

"..you describe as a malicious, murderous culture of police.". I said, or characterized police as this? If I have given you the impression that ALL cops are vicious, malicious, and murderous, then I apologize. I worked in the Crime Specific Task Force(White Night Riots, Saint Paddy's Day Parade, Gay Night Riots, Market Street Sniper, Zebra Murders, etc), also the Street Crime Unit(car and body decoy operations), and in Narcotics(drug busts, a user and a buyer), and in my last two years, in a uniform out in the stations.

I remember one time being so afraid lying in a smelly doorway with a wallet hanging out of my pocket. A week earlier, another decoy was shot in the head by an addict. I shit myself after my pocket was picked. I remember making a buy at the 500 block of Haight St. Even though my cover had been blown by my own cousin, I still went out to make buys. I started shaking like a leaf when I noticed 2 guys in suits walking towards me. Luckily, they never slowed down. How many times have I thought it was over for me, in my life! I was very busy in the department.

So, when I hear these stories involving fear and self defense from unarmed suspects, I certainly would have behaved differently. Unfortunately, no one knows how they will behave when they are truly shit scared and confused. That takes experience. Is this how SOME of today's cops deal with unarmed citizens? So, yes we old boys did stretch the letter of the law a bit, but this did not include KILLING UNARMED PEOPLE! Here's a question. You have 2,000 angry unarmed Gays coming at you. Would you fire your weapon, run like the wind, or some other action?

I wonder how many unarmed shootings occur in Australia?
To answer your 2,000 people question, that would depend on the circumstance. Am I alone? Or do I have a squad of riot-equipped police with me? If I'm with a group of officers, I'm not retreating unless we are ALL retreating.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Now we are seeing huge payouts and prosecutions of police. The public has had enough of police shoot to kill mentality, especially the police racist attitude to black people.
Poor little 'victims'.......Victims of the 'Perpetual Victim-Hood Syndrome', courtesy of the bleeding-heart Leftist MSM & the SJWs....

BTW.....police don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop a person that they deem is being a dangerous threat, from continuing in being a dangerous threat to either themselves, or another........if that person, or persons, deemed as being a dangerous threat, just so happens to expire due to being shot, Cest la vie........AFAIK.....Police are not trained to 'wound', & never will be trained to 'wound'.........

Regardless, answers will need to be forthcoming regarding every police shoot/discharge of a service firearm, to determine if it was a 'good shoot' or not.
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
Poor little 'victims'.......Victims of the 'Perpetual Victim-Hood Syndrome', courtesy of the bleeding-heart Leftist MSM & the SJWs....


BTW.....police don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop a person that they deem is being a dangerous threat, from continuing in being a dangerous threat to either themselves, or another........if that person, or persons, deemed as being a dangerous threat, just so happens to expire due to being shot, Cest la vie........AFAIK.....Police are not trained to 'wound', & never will be trained to 'wound'.........

Regardless, answers will need to be forthcoming regarding every police shoot/discharge of a service firearm, to determine if it was a 'good shoot' or not.
After payouts victims are no longer poor but the city is poor.

If the amount of money that eventually had to be paid to survivors of police shooting victims had been invested in appropriate recruitment and training the payouts may not have occurred. That would have been a win-win outcome instead of the current lose-lose outcomes of police killings.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
To answer your 2,000 people question, that would depend on the circumstance. Am I alone? Or do I have a squad of riot-equipped police with me? If I'm with a group of officers, I'm not retreating unless we are ALL retreating.
A very diplomatic answer. But Evasive. I have been in this situation with a platoon(4 squads) of other riot police(CSTF), at the White night riots. I was trying to find out, that if 2,000 screaming angry Gays were coming at you(it doesn't matter how many are with you), WOULD YOU FIRE YOUR GUN AT THEM?

In my case, we had no body shield(only partial face shields), and our 26"wooden baton. We were being pelted with bricks and concrete while in formation. We all said "fuck it" and charged the crowd, hitting anyone in the way, and protecting any member who had fallen. This, to our surprise worked. But, no one fired a shot.

So, let me rephrase. In what situation would you fire your weapon, if 2,000 unarmed angry Gays were charginging at you, to do you harm? I doesn't matter if you are alone, or with 30 other cops in full riot gear. Would you then fire your gun, run away, or some other option?

I guess I am just looking for something to compare with the shooting of unarmed people.
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
A very diplomatic answer. But Evasive. I have been in this situation with a platoon(4 squads) of other riot police(CSTF), at the White night riots. I was trying to find out, that if 2,000 screaming angry Gays were coming at you(it doesn't matter how many are with you), WOULD YOU FIRE YOUR GUN AT THEM?

In my case, we had no body shield(only partial face shields), and our 26"wooden baton. We were being pelted with bricks and concrete while in formation. We all said "fuck it" and charged the crowd, hitting anyone in the way, and protecting any member who had fallen. This, to our surprise worked. But, no one fired a shot.

So, let me rephrase. In what situation would you fire your weapon, if 2,000 unarmed angry Gays were charging at you, to do you harm? I doesn't matter if you are alone, or with 30 other cops in full riot gear. Would you then fire your gun, run away, or some other option?

I guess I am just looking for something to compare with the shooting of unarmed people.
What you guys did makes sense to me. Take the initiative. Take the fight to them. Don't show fear. Intimidate them.

I've been in angry crowd situations multiple times, although it was a labor strike. I know how it feels to be outnumbered. What we did was stay calm, but didn't show fear, but we also did not engage in any needless provocation either.

Shell, I would only fire my weapon as a last resort to avoid death or serious injury. Everything else - batons, tasers, chemical spray - would have to fail first in the example you gave. But if that happened, and the crowd was intent on beating me senseless or killing me, then the last resort would be the firearm.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
BTW.....police don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop a person that they deem is being a dangerous threat, from continuing in being a dangerous threat to either themselves, or another........if that person, or persons, deemed as being a dangerous threat, just so happens to expire due to being shot, Cest la vie........AFAIK.....Police are not trained to 'wound', & never will be trained to 'wound'.........

Shoot to stop, Really!! Do guns now come with a "stop" selection switch that officers can choose? Or, is "Stop" just another sanitised euphemism for "kill"? All guns are designed to kill. Thus, they are called lethal weapons. I guess, that by killing whomever is shot by a gun, will almost certainly stop them. There are clearly less lethal ways to "stop" a person. But using a gun is certainly the best way to kill a person.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Shoot to stop, Really!! Do guns now come with a "stop" selection switch that officers can choose? Or, is "Stop" just another sanitised euphemism for "kill"? All guns are designed to kill. Thus, they are called lethal weapons. I guess, that by killing whomever is shot by a gun, will almost certainly stop them. There are clearly less lethal ways to "stop" a person. But using a gun is certainly the best way to kill a person.
We've been all through that debate before. But ...

Yes, a firearm can kill. A firearm can also wound without killing. It is a deadly weapon because it is capable of killing. It is designed to be capable of killing.

In a justifiable shooting, the officer (or a civilian for that matter) is not necessarily intending to kill, although they know that shooting may kill. But they also know that the shooting may not kill. Regardless of which outcome ensues, killing or wounding, the primary intent is to stop the threat. And if shooting stops the threat, the firearm has done its job regardless of whether the other person lives or dies, and the intention of the shooter was fulfilled.

Now I know that you are going to argue that because a firearm is a deadly weapon, the defensive shooter is intending to kill. I just cannot be persuaded to believe that. In a desperate moment like that, when your life is about to be taken by a criminal act, and you know it, all you want to do is to stop that threat. The instinct for self-preservation shuts out thoughts of killing or wounding. You just want to live, and you want that threat to be stopped.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
What you guys did makes sense to me. Take the initiative. Take the fight to them. Don't show fear. Intimidate them.

I've been in angry crowd situations multiple times, although it was a labor strike. I know how it feels to be outnumbered. What we did was stay calm, but didn't show fear, but we also did not engage in any needless provocation either.

Shell, I would only fire my weapon as a last resort to avoid death or serious injury. Everything else - batons, tasers, chemical spray - would have to fail first in the example you gave. But if that happened, and the crowd was intent on beating me senseless or killing me, then the last resort would be the firearm.

Thank you for your honesty. And, I know that no one really knows what they will do in a life or death situation.

Unfortunately, If 2,000 angry unarmed screaming Gays are beating you, firing your weapon will do you no good. Except to guarantee that you will definitely die. We all knew this, and only hoped to hold out until mutual aid arrive. If we had used our guns, we would all be dead. We all received commendations for our restraint, as well as our courage.

We were all scared shitless, but we kept the fuckers from destroying city hall.

So, I would assume, that it would take a lot, before you to open fire on an unarmed, handcuffed suspect? Or, would open fire on an unarmed suspect trying to escape from being arrested? Or, would mistake your taser for your gun? Or, would open fire on a teenage girl brandishing/threatening other teenage girls with a knife? Or, would open fire on anyone who is unarmed, or uncooperative?

Other than the obvious mistake for being armed(toy gun or knife), what other circumstance can you think of, that would justify the use of lethal force on an unarmed suspect? I just think that todays cops adhere more to the LETTER of the law, than we did to the SPIRIT of the law.
 
Top