Jim Duensing, who was shot by a Las Vegas policeman on October 30, and who is seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010, has issued a detailed, clear explanation of the incident. He was running from the police because they had tasered him and seemed about to do it a second time. Duensing has heart problems. See Independent Political Report here and read comment #73, which is Duensing’s statement.
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.
We need to ban tasers. Sadistic cops are getting their kicks using them
According to Duensing’s statement he was pulled over to be given a traffic violation ticket. The officer checked and found an outstanding warrant on him. Duensing stated he was trying to “talk” the officer out of arresting him, this is where things begin falling apart.
By talking back to the officer to try and convince him not to take him in it means he had been told he was under arrest. At this point the officer will be telling him to comply with being cuffed and taken in. Just because he does not want to be arrested is no excuse for not complying with this lawful order by this cop which as an attorney he was aware of.
With Duensing not complying he is resisting arrest. The officer then has some options as to what force to administer to bring Duensing to jail.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/identity-of-man-shot-by-lv-police-revealed-67906552.html
“Police Department policy allows the use of deadly force based on the severity of the crime, whether the suspect is a threat to the officer or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or trying to avoid arrest by fleeing.”
The officer correctly choose to what is referred to as a “less lethal” device, in this case a taser. While Duensing may have heart problems that make him more at risk to a taser this would not be known to a police officer. Perhaps Duensing would have preferred to be beaten down with a nightstick but he did not offer this as an option to the officer.
By Duensing’s statement he was tasered and then fled the scene. He says he did not try to draw any weapon which another officer thought he either had done or was trying too.
The news article reported one witness, a 19 year old girl named Burks, who said she saw the police pull him over, shoot him as he ran but did not see him draw a weapon. That she did see him pulling at his pants but she thought he was trying to keep his pants from falling down as he ran. The problem with this witness is she also says she did not see him tasered which both Duensing and the police confirm what happened. Apparently this witness did not have a very good view of events.
Do not forget the arrest of former LP of Wisconsin Jeff Wood on Oct 22 of this year. The police cruiser’s camera and microphones recorded the arrest. It is likely that the traffic stop of Duensing was also recorded. Do not be surprised if the police give him time to make false statements then release such a tape to the public.
Duensing resisted arrest, fled from arrest and was shot, after less lethal force was used, apparently within guidelines for use of force. No matter what shortcomings are found with the police officers actions Duensing by his own words is responsible for his getting shot.
So when less lethal force didn’t work to apprehend the suspect. Shooting him was warranted ? Are you deranged ? What world do you live in ? Cops tasering people, and it being acceptable is deplorable. Inhumane actions against the people they are sworn to protect. A outstanding warrant for what charge ? I highly doubt it was a violent offense. So if Duensing didn’t go in voluntarily, follow him and make an arrest at a different location. Commonsense, or follow orders ???
“follow him and make an arrest at a different location”………….that would mean extra work for LVMPD ….easier to just pull a trigger.
Recent news story (within last 2 weeks) about NOT having tasers used on chests.
A number of folks have had heart failure deaths after being tasered in chest.
Thus — attempted murder by the MORON cop robots ???
The MORON cops never watch the TV COPS show — running after and jumping on folks trying to get away — who are NOT armed and dangerous ???
Of course, these days — due to political correctness — lots of cops are in BAD physical shape — unable to run after anybody — so they taser and/or shoot.
# Frank Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am
So when less lethal force didn’t work to apprehend the suspect. Shooting him was warranted ? Are you deranged ? What world do you live in ? Cops tasering people, and it being acceptable is deplorable. Inhumane actions against the people they are sworn to protect. A outstanding warrant for what charge ? I highly doubt it was a violent offense. So if Duensing didn’t go in voluntarily, follow him and make an arrest at a different location. Commonsense, or follow orders ???
============================
Frank,
The taser was an appropriate choice from the force available to the police officer to use when a person resists arrest. Had he not tasered him then he would have had to club him with a nightstick or perhaps the gun butt. There are risks with any type of force be it a nightstick or a taser which is why they are referred to as ‘less lethal’.
You wrote “So when less lethal force didn’t work to apprehend the suspect. Shooting him was warranted ?”
That did not happen. He was shot only after he fled, which was escape. Also even a witness reported that he was grabbing at his pants. This is enough for a police officer, or even you or I, to think he was reaching for a weapon. That is enough for a police officer, or you and I, to use deadly force.
You also wrote”So if Duensing didn’t go in voluntarily, follow him and make an arrest at a different location. Commonsense, or follow orders ???”
Common sense was to arrest him there. After all, if he resists arrest there and attempts to escape there is no logical reason or “commonsense” to amuse he was willing to be arrested anywhere else.
he has to have known about the warrent, as a lawyer, and I would have to know details about the warrent to comment on it.
Ok, he could have simply gone with the arresting officer and not resisted arrest. The cop is just doing his job, and that would have avoided being zapped with the device.
Peacefully disobedience or protesting is a lot more honorable then getting caught, resisting arrest and justifying it all based on some vague anti-government, big brother mantra that only makes the Libertarian Party paranoid and crazy.
I see no evidence that he resisted arrest. Kevin O’Connell, I don’t believe that is a fair or logical assumption to make. Where is the evidence you are making the assumption on that he resisted arrest? It is more likely that the police officer prematurely used the stun gun before any indication of resistance. In fact, one eye witness account in the newspaper didn’t show any evidence of resisting arrest until after the stun gun was used. And with the hate speech and tactics the Rs and Ds use against ‘others’ it is highly likely that the police officer saw a bumper sticker he didn’t like and went into the situation with a finger on the stun gun trigger ready to pull it. In fact, as far as we know, the stun gun was accidently fired. Right Kevin O’Connell? Is it possible that the stun gun was fired by mistake? What happens to your assumption if that is the case?
# ILLinoise Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
I see no evidence that he resisted arrest. Kevin O’Connell, I don’t believe that is a fair or logical assumption to make. Where is the evidence you are making the assumption on that he resisted arrest? It is more likely that the police officer prematurely used the stun gun before any indication of resistance. In fact, one eye witness account in the newspaper didn’t show any evidence of resisting arrest until after the stun gun was used. And with the hate speech and tactics the Rs and Ds use against ‘others’ it is highly likely that the police officer saw a bumper sticker he didn’t like and went into the situation with a finger on the stun gun trigger ready to pull it. In fact, as far as we know, the stun gun was accidently fired. Right Kevin O’Connell? Is it possible that the stun gun was fired by mistake? What happens to your assumption if that is the case?
————————————
I am just sticking with the facts.
The witness states she never saw the stun gun used so she was not in position to see clearly or was simply not watching that closely.
The man himself wrote that when the officer told him he was being taken in for an outstanding warrant that he was trying to talk the officer out of arresting him. Since he was continuing to talk he was not allowing himself to be cuffed, he could have been cuffed and still been able to talk.
He was not running away or physically in contact with the officer but he was refusing arrest, that is resisting arrest.
So the officer had the choice for the level of force to use. Get in a direct fist fight with this man, hit him with a nightstick or gun butt or taser. The officer chose taser to force compliance.
The man after being tasered ran off, that is escape and certainly part of resisting arrest.
According to the reports by both the man and the police officer the stun gun was used intentionally. So your fantasy questions, well they are a waste of time.
Your paranioa is showing, that the police may have pulled him over because he had a bumper sticker on the car.
It was rental car, they only pulled him over for a traffic violation. A run of the tags would not have shown who was driving it. He was just getting a ticket until his license was run, they had no idea of who he was.
Try a little more research and a lot less personal fears.
Don’t care who’s right … legally speaking. It’s not cool to shoot somebody in the back.
I suspect the local LP either had no idea about this or has no control over its candidates. Neither of which is great.
Personally, I do not care too much if a candidate has a ‘record’ (or ‘past’) per se as long as they are open and honest about it.
“Since he was continuing to talk he was not allowing himself to be cuffed, he could have been cuffed and still been able to talk.”
It is entirely possible to talk while moving other muscles in your body, or while holding your hands above your head. You obviously have made up your mind already based on an emotional reaction and are too obtuse to consider any alternative other than what your emotions are telling you. You assume a person that is talking is unable to do anything else. That is not a logical position, and it is plain wrong.
“He was not running away or physically in contact with the officer but he was refusing arrest, that is resisting arrest.”
He was refusing arrest based on what? Your emotional assumption, that is what. Again, would talking automatically lead to the action of refusing arrest? No. No logic to base your assumption on. “Come on officer, you don’t want to arrest me for a silly unpaid parking ticket or whatever it is, can’t you let me clear this up on Monday”, he says while hands above head. Is that refusing arrest? Nope.
Paranoia is not evident at all, but what is, is your jumping to conclusions and assumptions. Pointing out someone making unfair judgments based on emotional reactions and assumptions instead of real evidence is not paranoia. Calling someone paranoid that challenges your wrong assumptions and unfair rush to judgment does exhibit signs of emotional instability on your part however.
“Your paranioa is showing, that the police may have pulled him over because he had a bumper sticker on the car.”
And this proves you have serious problems to address before judging others and situations like this. I did not say he was pulled over because of bumper stickers. You fraudulently made that up.
Good day. I don’t wish to continue interacting with obviously dishonest people without the integrity to admit wrong assumptions and wrong presumptions of guilt about another human being. You can take your superiority complex elsewhere. A shrink would be a good idea perhaps.
This is not the first time Kevin O’Connell, 57, has had a problem with Maryland’s rules as to the practice of law without a license. It may be unsporting for libertarians to report him but someone should.
Green Party Bystander Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
This is not the first time Kevin O’Connell, 57, has had a problem with Maryland’s rules as to the practice of law without a license. It may be unsporting for libertarians to report him but someone should.
=============================
The above post is an example of a classic intentionally misleading internet posting tactic.
I will explain…
“This is not the first time Kevin O’Connell, 57, has had a problem with Maryland’s rules as to the practice of law without a license.” This appears to say that the state of Maryland has taken official action against me for practicing law without a license. Now I will explain what it really says.
The statement “this is not the first time” really means this is not the first time. Yes, this is not the first time and because there has never been any previous problem before with Maryland or any other state.
It was worded this way to imply I had broken the law but the poster when challenged will point out what they really said claiming the misunderstanding was the reader’s fault. The poster Green Party Bystander wrote an intentionally misleading posting.
It gets better with the second part ” It may be unsporting for libertarians to report him but someone should.” encouraging some poor reader somewhere to fall into the trap of making a fool of themselves. You will notice the poster claim to be of the Green Party, so why won’t they report me? They do not want to report me because there is nothing to report and filing false complaints is frowned upon.
Too bad that this kind of poster takes away from the real issues of this thread but the internet is haunted by some unsavory types.
So, he only winged that damned lawyer? Well, better luck next time. Give him half a point for a nice try.
Maybe I am missing something here, but from what I am reading the man — a lawyer — was in fact resisting arrest (by trying to talk his way out of it and then fleeing the scene) and the police officer used the least deadly/vicious method to bring him in on a warrent.
17. ETJB Says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Maybe I am missing something here, but from what I am reading the man — a lawyer — was in fact resisting arrest (by trying to talk his way out of it and then fleeing the scene) and the police officer used the least deadly/vicious method to bring him in on a warrent.
===========================
That was it and a little more.
The man refused to submit to arrest and the officer was required to use force, the officer choose to use a taser.
The man then ran and the officer fired the taser again but in statements the man said he heard the taser fire but was not hit a second time.
The man, by his own admission, was carrying a knife and a .45 caliber pistol which he had a permit to carry. He stated the pistol was in the pocket of his cargo pants. These pants are a military fatigues style and have a large exterior pocket on both sides.
The pocket starts at about mid thigh and stops at about the knee.
A cut down model of a .45 semiautomatic pistol is about 6 1/2″ long and 4 3/4″ high, weighs around 24 ounces. Full sized ones are of course larger and heaver. I do not know what model he was carrying.
The officer may have seen a concealed carry permit when he ran the man’s licensee. It is probable he saw what would appear to be a possible handgun in the man’s pocket.
There was one witness quoted who did not see the taser used. Says she saw the man running and grabbing at his pants. She thought he was trying to keep his pants from falling down. Still to an officer this could appear to be the man trying to pull out a gun.
At this point the officer opened fire.
I did research and found the man was admitted to the Nevada Bar 4 1/2 years ago. His address registered with the Bar is a rental mail box. Also he does not have the required liability insurance registered with the Bar Association. Perhaps he works at a law firm and is covered by a firm’s policy or did not update his information with the Bar. He may have passed his Bar exams but never practiced law.
The only reference I have heard about his employment is as a firearms instructor at a shooting range.
While it is only natural for like-minded people to sympathize when something like this happens to one of their own. The facts, however, do speak for themselves.
I have read the comments by Jim Duesing at Indy Political Report and the LVRJ article referenced. I have concluded the comments made by Kevin O’Connell are, in fact, correct.
I am no fan of tasers or police misconduct. I am also no fan of Kevin O’Connell (aka LightonLiberty) and have sparred with him and prevailed on numerous occasions in debates on a libertarian e-mail chatgroup.
However, based on my assessment, it seems Jim Duesing did, in fact, flee from an arrest and the arresting police officer used the correct judgement for this incident.
If this was politically motivated then the police officer should be disciplined. However, the possibility of that is looking like that is not the case and Jim Duesing did act in error.
If a police officer establishes that someone he stops has an outstanding warrant, decides to initiate an arrest and gives an order to a suspect to turn around and put their hands behind their back and they refuse then the defendant is resisting arrest.
Regardless of Duesing’s reasons for fleeing, by him refusing the order and rather than use his pistol, the cop opted for the less deadly option by using his taser. If a cop feels threatened (which seems to be the case) he is going to act to preserve his life and will not give a hoot if the arrestee has any medical conditions.
While I can understand why he did, when Duesing removed the tasers and then fled, he buried himself further in a legal hole. Now, worst part about it, are the statements he is making to the press which prosecutors can use against him when (not if) he is brought up on charges.
Also a witness observed Jim Duesing grabbing at his pants as he fled. This can be interpreted by the police officer as reaching for a weapon.
It looks like the cop who stopped him was not the one who shot Duesing but another one close by attending to another matter and decided to assist the cop who stopped Duesing which the officer who opened fire obviously interpreted Duesing’s grabbing at his pants as reaching for a weapon.
Jim Duesing’s big mistakes are not just fleeing the scene but also for not complying with the cop’s order. Dueing had a traffic warrant out for him and he knew this.
What could have been a minor incident where Duesing would have spent a day or two in jail, pay a fine and then leave can potentially escalate into Jim Duesing being a convicted felon doing hard time in prison.
For all of the talk from libertarians about personal responsibility on the part of others, we should also apply the same standard to our own, like Duesing, who we can still call a comrade but when they screw up we need to tell them so and hold them accountable like we would anyone else.
how many of the commenters on this post were there….my guess; none!
unless you idiots have ESP or can somehow magically see things hundreds of miles away. Let the courts decide wether Duensing is guilty of resisting arrest.