A woman bystander was struck during the gunfire exchange and was taken to the hospital with serious conditions. Gonzalez said the man was believed to have two open felony warrants.
A man was shot and killed while exchanging gunfire with Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputies following a traffic stop in north Houston Sunday.
He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot, he was shot because he was shooting at police. Why even mention he was a Sovcit idiot? It doesn’t change the story at all.
The site might as well have: “Man with blue pants shot, killed during exchange with Harris County deputies”
Deputies conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle with expired tags and a broken taillight on FM 1960. Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen.
Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle, Gonzalez said.
Refusing to comply with their demands, he drove away from the scene and engaged in a brief pursuit with deputies before his vehicle was brought to a stop on the corner of FM 1960 and Ella Boulevard.
After stepping out of his vehicle, the man, armed with a pistol, began shooting at deputies. They exchanged gunfire and the man was shot dead. No deputies were injured during the exchange, Gonzalez said.
Ahem…
He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot…
Oh, yes he was.
…he was shot because he was shooting at police.
His “ideology” dictated a pathology that led to a predictable outcome. The article is a clear and concise description of the standard sovcit idiot playbook, however cops are usually successful in arresting the dopes before it gets shooty. Not always.
An hour of talking to the man. Must been white because a black man would not get this treatment if asked to exit vehicle. Matter of fact they probably wouldn’t have asked.
Either way, refusing to get out of your car when a cop tells you to is never going to end well for the driver, regardless of race. Especially in Texas, and doubly so when you try to take off on them. Cops don’t tend to like people flouting their authority.
IDK some power-tripping assholes will take any excuse to open fire. I can respect people who don’t move at all for their own safety. They’ll be enraged and power-tripping, so likelihood of being dragged out of the car and unconstitutionally beaten is high. But they have fewer excuses to pretend they fear for their lives.
You know what amazes me, is that there are black sovcits. I saw video one of them shot lately, and honestly I appreciated the cops being as boundedly patient with him as I’ve seen them be with white sovcits, but holy shit I do not get how black people are willing to play that particular game given all of the times the cops have, in very genteel language, failed to uphold professional standards when interacting with someone with more than a minimal amount of melanin.
The real lesson we should get out of all of this is that we’re not that much different.
White people should absolutely care about Black Lives Matter, even just for selfish reasons. Because as soon as a cop decides, he will treat you or your kids in the exact same way. They have a predilection to treat black people as inferior, but as soon as you do anything they don’t like you’re in the exact same bucket.
We should all be on the same side, and it’s for some kind of real police accountability.
I say we indulge them and take that to its logical conclusion.
Sovereign citizen? Ok so not a citizen of the United States. Do they have a Visa to be in the country? No? Then they’re here illegally and should be deported. Process them like any other illegal immigrant.
In the meantime, we all know they’re actually US citizens, but if they keep claiming they aren’t a citizen then they obviously must have stolen that citizen’s identity. Process it that way.
They’ll very quickly admit they are actually a US citizen, and thus must comply with US laws, when they’re looking at being deported to a country they know nothing about and losing everything they have here for fraud and identity theft.
Lots of Sovcit idiots are pulled over and NOT shot.
If a Sovcit is pull over and not shot, and a Sovcit is pulled over and shot, the status of the idiot being Sovcit or not doesn’t make them be shot. Its when the idiot starts shooting at police he’s shot, just like when non-Sovcit idiots shoot at police, they’re shot.
So no, the idiot being sovcit didn’t change the outcome.
Being a sovcit led to the altercation which led to the shooting which led to the death.
Just because not every sovcit gets shot doesn’t mean his being sovcit isn’t relevant. Not everyone who pulls a sword on police gets shot, but pulling a sword on police would be relevant if the person pulling the sword out got shot.
Yeah, but this guy wasn’t “lots of other sovcits”. He was this guy who took it way too far and suffered the consequences of his batshit ideology in a very predictable way. He did not commit his actions in a vacuum— he followed a very specific script of escalation in accordance with sovereign citizen ideology, and that is what is to blame, for it’s that influence which is undoubtedly what led him to this very predictable end.
The article (which I quoted) spells that out very clearly and unambiguously.
he followed a very specific script of escalation in accordance with sovereign citizen ideology, and that is what is to blame, for it’s that influence which is undoubtedly what led him to this very predictable end.
If your statement is true, why don’t all Sovcit idiots engage in gunfire with police, if its prescribed that way in their batshit insane ideology?
This isn’t a conversation about ALL sovcits, just this one and what they did. Besides, since when do adherents to any beliefs system always follow every tenet, or even universally agree on what they even are?
Their cowards? Many people talk a great game about their ideology but fail to follow through.
Many(most?) religious texts require stoning people to death for violating certain rules. Just because most don’t, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant if one person does because of that text…
the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen. Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle.
It’s obviously relevant context. This situation wouldn’t exist if he wasn’t a sovidiot.
How this dude has so much support in this thread is beyond me. Literally the first thing he did was stepped out of his vehicle was announce that he identified as a sovereign citizen then proceeded to argue with the cops for over an hour. Then he drives off and gets in a shoot out.
How on earth is this dude’s sovcit announcement not relevant
The line between “imply” and “provide” is pretty damn razor thin here. The first thing this sovcit with 2 felonies did was announce he was a sovcit then proceed to argue with the police for over an hour before driving off not recognizing their authority. Then he got into a shootout with said law enforcement.
I mean this is “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…” incarnate. We are not a court of law here. We can draw conclusions based on this.
Meth? Personal grudge? Former cop whistleblower fighting for his life? Just hates cops and shoots at people all the time? Suicidal? It’s part of the Who What Where Why When formula.
It’s a valid question, and valid to include in the story and, yes, in the headline.
Because they had a conversation for an hour and a half talking to the guy before he drove off on them. That’s an hour and a half of sovcit circle talk bullshit.
He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot, he was shot because he was shooting at police. Why even mention he was a Sovcit idiot? It doesn’t change the story at all.
The site might as well have: “Man with blue pants shot, killed during exchange with Harris County deputies”
FTA:
Ahem…
Oh, yes he was.
His “ideology” dictated a pathology that led to a predictable outcome. The article is a clear and concise description of the standard sovcit idiot playbook, however cops are usually successful in arresting the dopes before it gets shooty. Not always.
An hour of talking to the man. Must been white because a black man would not get this treatment if asked to exit vehicle. Matter of fact they probably wouldn’t have asked.
Either way, refusing to get out of your car when a cop tells you to is never going to end well for the driver, regardless of race. Especially in Texas, and doubly so when you try to take off on them. Cops don’t tend to like people flouting their authority.
IDK some power-tripping assholes will take any excuse to open fire. I can respect people who don’t move at all for their own safety. They’ll be enraged and power-tripping, so likelihood of being dragged out of the car and unconstitutionally beaten is high. But they have fewer excuses to pretend they fear for their lives.
Really cannot drive away, tho.
You know what amazes me, is that there are black sovcits. I saw video one of them shot lately, and honestly I appreciated the cops being as boundedly patient with him as I’ve seen them be with white sovcits, but holy shit I do not get how black people are willing to play that particular game given all of the times the cops have, in very genteel language, failed to uphold professional standards when interacting with someone with more than a minimal amount of melanin.
Really didn’t know that, thought it was white hicks that believed in that crap.
The real lesson we should get out of all of this is that we’re not that much different.
White people should absolutely care about Black Lives Matter, even just for selfish reasons. Because as soon as a cop decides, he will treat you or your kids in the exact same way. They have a predilection to treat black people as inferior, but as soon as you do anything they don’t like you’re in the exact same bucket.
We should all be on the same side, and it’s for some kind of real police accountability.
Sovereign citizen is an extreme delusional fantasy that only the whitest idiots are entitled enough to indulge.
I say we indulge them and take that to its logical conclusion.
Sovereign citizen? Ok so not a citizen of the United States. Do they have a Visa to be in the country? No? Then they’re here illegally and should be deported. Process them like any other illegal immigrant.
In the meantime, we all know they’re actually US citizens, but if they keep claiming they aren’t a citizen then they obviously must have stolen that citizen’s identity. Process it that way.
They’ll very quickly admit they are actually a US citizen, and thus must comply with US laws, when they’re looking at being deported to a country they know nothing about and losing everything they have here for fraud and identity theft.
If they truly believed any of what they utter they would have done the paperwork to relinquish their citizenship.
Removed by mod
I misread your post, but the prima facie is that he drew a weapon on law enforcement, that as a result.of being a sovcit idiot.
Chorine in the gene.pool. What a bitch.
Lots of Sovcit idiots are pulled over and NOT shot.
If a Sovcit is pull over and not shot, and a Sovcit is pulled over and shot, the status of the idiot being Sovcit or not doesn’t make them be shot. Its when the idiot starts shooting at police he’s shot, just like when non-Sovcit idiots shoot at police, they’re shot.
So no, the idiot being sovcit didn’t change the outcome.
Being a sovcit led to the altercation which led to the shooting which led to the death.
Just because not every sovcit gets shot doesn’t mean his being sovcit isn’t relevant. Not everyone who pulls a sword on police gets shot, but pulling a sword on police would be relevant if the person pulling the sword out got shot.
Yeah, but this guy wasn’t “lots of other sovcits”. He was this guy who took it way too far and suffered the consequences of his batshit ideology in a very predictable way. He did not commit his actions in a vacuum— he followed a very specific script of escalation in accordance with sovereign citizen ideology, and that is what is to blame, for it’s that influence which is undoubtedly what led him to this very predictable end.
The article (which I quoted) spells that out very clearly and unambiguously.
If your statement is true, why don’t all Sovcit idiots engage in gunfire with police, if its prescribed that way in their batshit insane ideology?
This isn’t a conversation about ALL sovcits, just this one and what they did. Besides, since when do adherents to any beliefs system always follow every tenet, or even universally agree on what they even are?
lol, your arguments are fallacious and spurious
Their cowards? Many people talk a great game about their ideology but fail to follow through.
Many(most?) religious texts require stoning people to death for violating certain rules. Just because most don’t, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant if one person does because of that text…
deleted by creator
It’s providing the motive.
It’s obviously relevant context. This situation wouldn’t exist if he wasn’t a sovidiot.
How this dude has so much support in this thread is beyond me. Literally the first thing he did was stepped out of his vehicle was announce that he identified as a sovereign citizen then proceeded to argue with the cops for over an hour. Then he drives off and gets in a shoot out.
How on earth is this dude’s sovcit announcement not relevant
Its implying a motive
The line between “imply” and “provide” is pretty damn razor thin here. The first thing this sovcit with 2 felonies did was announce he was a sovcit then proceed to argue with the police for over an hour before driving off not recognizing their authority. Then he got into a shootout with said law enforcement.
I mean this is “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…” incarnate. We are not a court of law here. We can draw conclusions based on this.
Why did he open fire on the cops?
Meth? Personal grudge? Former cop whistleblower fighting for his life? Just hates cops and shoots at people all the time? Suicidal? It’s part of the Who What Where Why When formula.
It’s a valid question, and valid to include in the story and, yes, in the headline.
The article says he may have had felony warrants.
Probably not the first time this yoyo thought laws don’t apply to him. Special little snowflake, that one.
Removed by mod
Except they dont say “gunfire exchange” so the headline def means to slant towards sovcit being the victim
Removed by mod
Im just commenting on the clickbait and slanted headline and its intended effects.
I did read the article and thats how I came to see the slant, and why I chose to comment on it.
Or lazily slanting towards “ACAB”.
That would be like describing 9/11 as “Man flies plane into building, twice”. I imagine the cops screamed at him to submit, he refused then violence.
Because they had a conversation for an hour and a half talking to the guy before he drove off on them. That’s an hour and a half of sovcit circle talk bullshit.
deleted by creator
Right, click-bait.