RETIRED T378 wrote on November 02, 2009 09:53 PM: Heather you're an idiot, he got tasered after he refused to follow a lawful order. The cops are no longer allowed to pound them into the gound like spike as should have been done. Knapp, the only thug is the one who delivered you on your birthday. Hugs for thugs flowers for felons.

Heather Clark wrote on November 02, 2009 04:20 PM: Please read Jim's own take on the events. He was only attempting to flee the police out of instinct because he had been tasered and feared for his life due to a heart condition. This cop should be put in prison for every bit as long as a civilian who shot a cop in the back would be.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/10/former-nevada-lp-state-chair-shot-by-police-is-in-critical-condition/#comment-124357

Thomas L. Knapp wrote on November 02, 2009 09:50 AM: So when is the Review-Journal going to publish the identity of the thug who assaulted Duensing with a Taser and then shot him in the back, twice, when he fled the assault?

Simon Girty wrote on November 02, 2009 07:45 AM: As someone who is both a Libertarian and and a Criminal Justice Professional I am disturbed by the arguments on both sides of this issue.

One of the basic principles of our legal system is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty". At this point nobody has been proven guilty of anything. You all need to keep that in mind. All we know is that Duensing has been accused of traffic violations, fleeing the police and perhaps carrying a weapon. To assume his guilt based on what the police say is just dumb.

However, the exact same standard must by applied to the officer in this case. He too is innocent until proven guilty. To assume that the cop is guilty and that the whole department will now try to cover up the truth is both dumb and paranoid.

When I see a dispute where one side automatically assumes the government is absolutely without fault and the other side just as automatically assumes the government must be totally at fault it puts me in fear for the state of our republic.

Of course we should question everything we hear. We should be skeptical and we should hold our government officials accountable. But, we can do that when we have some FACTS.

LibertyFelix wrote on November 02, 2009 12:52 AM: And so it progresses. …the police state of tyranny marches on.

I’m not suggesting that just because Libertarians have been included in police training updates as potential terrorist suspects, along with Ron Paul supporters, pocket constitution carriers, Federal Reserve protesters, disgruntled Veterans, et. al., that this policeman was targeting Duensing for being a Libertarian candidate. The point is, these psychological operations such as the MIAC report, listing such categories, seems to have effectively programmed cops like this one in Las Vegas to put us all at risk.

Duensing's description posted #73:
http://www.pyrabang.com/view.php?ref=libertyfelix&post_id=42698

Perry wrote on November 01, 2009 11:52 PM: Prometheus, I pray to God that someday soon you will be on the receiving end of cop abuse. I also hope and pray that not if, but when it happens, nobody will take your side. Amen!!!

Perry wrote on November 01, 2009 11:49 PM: Ok, so let me get this right.... A man is running away from a cop. While running away he is pulling out a gun. I woould think that in order to use the gun, he was supposedly pulling out, he would actually have to turn, locate his target then take aim and fire. All this against a cop already armed and pointing the gun at the fleeing man. Boy to think that the guy running away had an actual chance of getting a shot off before the cop could..... that boggles the thinking mind. Get real people. There is no bloody chance in hell that a fleeing person could get off a shot on a stationary person already armed and ready to shoot. This is not the damn movies for Christ's sake. This was all out attempted murder even if the guy actually was reaching for a gun.
And oh please don't tell me about how cops have it so damn rough and dangerous. A 7-11 clerk is in more danger everyday than a cop ever would be. And don't forget they chose the profession and get paid huge bucks to take the risk (which is no risk at all) on a big picture. Spare me the Liberal crap that says "nobody should be afraid of cops if they have done nothing wrong". If this is the case why the heck do we all have our hearts drop to our toes whenever a cop siren or light goes off behind us.

Starchild wrote on November 01, 2009 08:36 AM: According to the story, Jim made an illegal turn and several illegal lane changes. Big freaking deal. Probably half or more of the drivers out there change lanes without signaling on a regular basis, and for all we know Jim made the lane changes in question in his haste to pull over when he saw a cop car with its lights flashing behind him. Haven’t you ever gotten nervous while being followed by a cop and made a driving mistake you wouldn’t have otherwise?

As for the “illegal turn”, that’s about as bad as jaywalking — many places with no-turn signs are totally safe to turn, and the signs do nothing but cause vast quantities of extra oil being burned and extra pollutants pumped into the atmosphere from people driving the long way around to get to where they’re trying to go rather than just making the turn.

According to the eyewitness, the police had been targeting lots of drivers in the area, and this officer was probably on the lookout for any tiny infraction because he/she had some kind of quota, formal or otherwise.

The fact that Jim had warrants is no reason to automatically fault him either. If the warrants were for armed robbery or something that would be one thing, but I know Jim and highly doubt it. Far likelier these warrants — one more police tool to keep people in line and fearful from exercising their rights for fear of attracting official attention — were imposed as punishment for actions decent citizens should applaud, such as failure to pay other bull—- citations.

All those details are mere footnotes however. The bottom line is this: If you are a police officer and shoot a fleeing suspect who poses no threat to anyone in the back, you should be fired and prosecuted.

Tannim wrote on November 01, 2009 08:30 AM: It appears that Prometheus not only doesn't know the man but is making unfounded statements here while shilling for the trigger-happy cops.

Note we only have the police side of the story and it sorely lacks in details, meaning in the absence of confirmation, it could simply be made up, as a lot of attempts at police whitewash tend to do in classic CYA fashion.

So until Duensing speaks, consider all reports suspect, and Prometheus ought to clam up.

However, it strikes me as odd that a man who trains people to shoot and by all accounts is a marksman would be trying to draw out a .45 while fleeing. It would make more sense to draw then and there at short range and plug the cops than try to run away and draw on the run, giving the cops time to draw themselves while making the range larger and the target smaller.

Of course, cops aren't trained to think like that. A lot of them aren't trained to think much at all. If they were, they wouldn't be randomly shooting people at traffic stops, among other illegal and stupid activities.

brian wrote on November 01, 2009 01:45 AM: Legal lawful citizens do not have to obey illegal, unlawful orders

why do the cops shoot first and ask questions later?

They do it because they can ……

Read All Comments