The message is clear. Don't mess with the Uber driver.

[Lola]

He broke his contract and now an unarmed person has died as a result, worse still all other Uber drivers are now at risk because the criminals will be assuming they are armed and so the criminals will shoot first without waiting to find out if the Uber drivers are actually armed.

Uber should sack him and set an example, then advertise that Uber drivers are unarmed.

Criminals don't shoot first, they are scared bad that there targets will have guns and don't want to interact with those that do, they know they are criminals and willing to accept that most people don't have a gun! When they run into a guy/woman that does, 99% of the time they will run like Hell! They do not have a death wish!!
However some people are just plain born stupid, add some booze/drugs and they believe they are invincible (in their minds!), then they do things that are really stupid, like cut someone off, rush out of their vehicle towards the victim yelling I will kill you with something in his hand when it's dark ! Now some of you think the victim should stop and say lets sit down and talk out your hostility problems, BS! The criminal will take this as a sign of weakness and come full steam for you.
When word gets around that you and others carry guns, criminals want nothing to do with you!! They would have NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING to loose.

 

[TexMex]

Criminals don't shoot first, they are scared bad that there targets will have guns and don't want to interact with those that do, they know they are criminals and willing to accept that most people don't have a gun! When they run into a guy/woman that does, 99% of the time they will run like Hell! They do not have a death wish!!
However some people are just plain born stupid, add some booze/drugs and they believe they are invincible (in their minds!), then they do things that are really stupid, like cut someone off, rush out of their vehicle towards the victim yelling I will kill you with something in his hand when it's dark ! Now some of you think the victim should stop and say lets sit down and talk out your hostility problems, BS! The criminal will take this as a sign of weakness and come full steam for you.
When word gets around that you and others carry guns, criminals want nothing to do with you!! They would have NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING to loose.

 

[kamkar]

The criminals here fighting for the drug market scraps the bikers allow them to fight over, well if they had any aim at all many more people would have been shot dead.
But it honestly look as if they just want to scare each other with firing guns, and thats a pretty lame approach, but not surprising from those parasites.

 

[Rajagra]

A sad thing is the dead guy had a kid. His girlfriend is now sticking up for him (!) to some degree, saying he was a really nice person, always willing to be helpful. He had been working extra hours to provide money for the kid, that's why they were meeting up that night.

A pity he was a meth addict too.

I have no doubt the uber driver would have needed to defend himself at some point, and that may have meant the truck driver being shot or run down.

And the uber driver is now saying all the right things, seems like a decent person. I just think he handled the situation badly. As I've said, in most of the world, incidents identical to that play out daily, and it leads to nothing more than angry shouting.

As someone has said above, showing the gun, and/or giving a direct verbal warning, could have been all that was needed.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Nigel]

I have no doubt the uber driver would have needed to defend himself at some point, and that may have meant the truck driver being shot or run down.

The guy was having an argument with his girlfriend, his only interest in the Uber driver was in getting him to stop while he dealt with his girlfriend. So why would the Uber driver need to use self defence?

Possibly Uber driver may have needed to defend his passenger, but I guess the self defence laws don't allow that since it is not self defence?

 

[Rajagra]

why would the Uber driver need to use self defence?

The uber driver had no way of knowing this (very important, that), but the other guy had already threatened to attack the uber driver, in text messages he had sent to his girlfriend, who wasn't in the uber car.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Dashmellow]

The Uber driver is a professional

The guy was having an argument with his girlfriend, his only interest in the Uber driver was in getting him to stop while he dealt with his girlfriend. So why would the Uber driver need to use self defence?

Possibly Uber driver may have needed to defend his passenger, but I guess the self defence laws don't allow that since it is not self defence?

Get your facts straight Nigel. The assailant's ONLY interest was NOT in getting him to stop while he dealt with his girlfriend. He made it clear in text messages that he intended to attack the Uber driver. And after forcing him to stop he emerged from his truck acting extremely belligerent while claiming he had a gun and pantomiming the act of shooting with a black object in his hand as he advanced towards the Uber car!

 

[Nigel]

The uber driver had no way of knowing this (very important, that), but the other guy had already threatened to attack the uber driver, in text messages he had sent to his girlfriend, who wasn't in the uber car.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

He also said that he had a gun, wasn't true. But you said "I have no doubt" as though you know that the Uber driver would have been physically attacked when I can't see how you know that...

 

[Rajagra]

Maybe he was just full of hot air, we'll never know for sure. But if you check the build up to all this, and remember he was a meth addict with a meth pipe in his car, well violence seems likely to me. (But again, the uber driver did not know these things.)

I said the uber driver would have probably needed to defend himself. That could have been nothing more than winding up the windows and locking the doors. Or simply reversing. It MAY have become necessary to resort to deadly force.

I feel like I'm arguing both sides now, but:

Boek's criminal history includes previous arrests for aggravated battery, battery, burglary, marijuana possession, forgery, larceny, resisting arrest, and VOP. He's on felony probation for battery, which began in June 2016 and was scheduled to end in June 2021.

http://www.weny.com/story/39002165/stand-your-ground-shooting-uber-driver-speaks

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Dashmellow]

He also said that he had a gun, wasn't true. But you said "I have no doubt" as though you know that the Uber driver would have been physically attacked when I can't see how you know that...

Stating you have a gun when you don't may be one thing but in this case you can't separate the assailant's statement from his actions. It was the combination of his statement AND his actions that got him shot dead. And as I've pointed out in a previous post this entire incident occurred within the span of only five seconds between the time the belligerent driver emerged from his truck after forcing the Uber driver off the road and the time he got shot. In a life and death incident like this that is not a lot of time to contemplate an assailant's thinking.

Another point to consider here is that the Uber driver was a professional security guard and licensed firearms owner who had recently successfully completed training at a Police Academy. At the Police Academy and as a professional security guard he would surely have received threat assessment training for how to respond in exactly this type of situation. This type of law enforcement training not only includes threat assessment but also includes training in how to shoot accurately when under extreme duress and pumped full of adrenaline. That is why this incident was over so quickly with one shot fired. An amateur would likely have fired multiple rounds.

 

[Nigel]

...after forcing the Uber driver off the road...

If he was forced off the road then I would consider that an attack and his actions would be more justified, but he appears to stop on the road, it is a forced stop, not an attack.

Had he been forced off the road previous to the stop in the video?

 

[Dashmellow]

If he was forced off the road then I would consider that an attack and his actions would be more justified, but he appears to stop on the road, it is a forced stop, not an attack.

Had he been forced off the road previous to the stop in the video?

You are splitting hairs. And whether he was "forced off the road" or "forced to come to an abrupt stop", the key factors that you seem to wish to ignore is that the assailant immediately emerged from his vehicle acting in a highly aggressive, belligerent, threatening manner while advancing on the Uber driver claiming AND behaving as if he had a handgun while expressing his intent to use it!

 

[Rajagra]

If he was forced off the road then I would consider that an attack and his actions would be more justified, but he appears to stop on the road, it is a forced stop, not an attack.

Had he been forced off the road previous to the stop in the video?

He was not forced off the road (even though the sheriff has repeated this claim.) The detail I've read was that the F250 tailgated the uber, pulled alongside it briefly, then cut in front forcing it to stop. All very quick. And not enough IMO to for the driver conclude his life was in immediate danger.

There is a more complete video of the sheriff's press announcement. He behaves very unprofessionally with a complete lack of objectivity. Most commenters are loving that. I find it worrying. Especially since the uber driver WAS in the process of becoming a police officer.

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/tampa-bay-times/20180901/281861529378449

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Dashmellow]

He was not forced off the road (even though the sheriff has repeated this claim.) The detail I've read was that the F250 tailgated the uber, pulled alongside it briefly, then cut in front forcing it to stop. All very quick. And not enough IMO to for the driver conclude his life was in immediate danger.

There is a more complete video of the sheriff's press announcement. He behaves very unprofessionally with a complete lack of objectivity. Most commenters are loving that. I find it worrying. Especially since the uber driver WAS in the process of becoming a police officer.

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/tampa-bay-times/20180901/281861529378449

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Albeit highly opinionated and somewhat colorful, Sheriff Judd is presenting what happened to a group of reporters during a press conference in order to explain his decision to not detain or charge the Uber driver. Ultimately, the local State Attorney's office is investigating and evaluating the matter and will make a decision on the legality of the shooting. YouTube and television news stories are not the place to adjudicate criminal matters.

As for whether the driver was "forced off the road" or "forced to a stop" the Sheriff mentions it only twice. In once instance he uses the term "forced him to a stop in the roadway" and shortly thereafter says "forces him off the road". This is a ridiculous and irrelevant point to be dwelling upon.

I do agree that some of Sheriff Judd's remarks do seem rather unprofessional, such as when he refers to the assailant as "Goof Ball". This too however is not germane to the matter at hand. The matter will work its way through the legal system and under current Florida law, the Sheriff is likely correct in his assessment that the Uber driver acted for good reason and in accordance with the statute.

 

[DashcamDPR]

I love how his girlfriend was sticking up for him saying he was a really nice person who's always helpful. Of course he would be, to her..

With the greatest of respect, I'm also a really nice helpful person... when I wanna get laid

 

[Rajagra]

As for whether the driver was "forced off the road" or "forced to a stop" the Sheriff mentions it only twice. In once instance he uses the term "forced him to a stop in the roadway" and shortly thereafter says "forces him off the road". This is a ridiculous and irrelevant point to be dwelling upon.

It's called spin. And when I hear that kind of thing I ask myself what other facts have been distorted or left out. Especially when there is such blatant bias. Again, what was meant by the phrase "I say somethin" by the uber driver? DID something else happen leading up to this? If it went to court it might be revealed by seeing earlier footage, but it now looks like the public will never know.

I counted the sheriff saying "run off the road" twice. He also made a comment (at 3:30) about the uber driver saying something as he was being tailgated. Whether the sheriff meant this literally is unclear, we won't find out without the earlier footage. He was painting the picture he wanted us to see, and we're supposed to just accept it.

Questioning whether a perversion of justice is being played out is NOT irrelevant.

I hate when political correctness stops people from saying it like it is. But from the police I expect professionalism and objectivity at all times. Otherwise we're all screwed. If they can't manage this in public view, how are they behaving in private? We shouldn't need to ask such questions, and it's a shame that we do need to.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Dashmellow]

It's called spin. And when I hear that kind of thing I ask myself what other facts have been distorted or left out. Especially when there is such blatant bias. Again, what was meant by the phrase "I say somethin" by the uber driver? DID something else happen leading up to this? If it went to court it might be revealed by seeing earlier footage, but it now looks like the public will never know.

I counted the sheriff saying "run off the road" twice. He also made a comment about the uber driver saying something as he was being tailgated. Whether the sheriff meant this literally is unclear, we won't find out without the earlier footage. He was painting the picture he wanted us to see, and we're supposed to just accept it.

Questioning whether a perversion of justice is being played out is NOT irrelevant.

I hate when political correctness stops people from saying it like it is. But from the police I expect professionalism and objectivity at all times. Otherwise we're all screwed. If they can't manage this in public view, how are they behaving in private? We shouldn't need to ask such questions, and it's a shame that we do need to.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Watch the video again. Point of fact, as I pointed out and quoted verbatim, The Sheriff said both "forced him to a stop in the roadway" and "forces him off the road" during his press conference. But this is a dumb point to even be arguing and for what purpose I have no idea. It's essentially semantics with the same result that the Uber vehicle was forcibly compelled to stop by the assailant whether it was "in" the road or "off" the road. It's a distraction from the main event.

As I also pointed out, the ultimate authority about what actually happened, who is culpable and what laws were violated will be the prosecutor's office, not the Sheriff's Department and they will do an independent investigation regardless of what the Sheriff said or didn't say in public.

You seem focused entirely on theorizing, speculating and concerning yourself with the Sheriiff's remarks rather that paying attention to what is actually seen on video. It doesn't really matter what the Uber driver may have said or didn't say to the assailant. When an angry, aggressive assailant advances on someone, ( a total stranger who has no idea why the assailant is behaving this way) while stating that he is going to shoot and pointing a black object at that someone (at night) the asailant opens himself to serious adverse consequences for that behavior. According to the law it doesn't matter who said what to whom before that moment. Once the assailant stepped over that line, all bets were off.

 

[Dashmellow]

Folks, the MESSAGE IS CLEAR, if there is one thing we should all learn from this unfortunate incident and from this thread and that is that we should ALWAYS have a dash cam in our vehicle.

 

[jokiin]

Folks, the MESSAGE IS CLEAR, if there is one thing we should all learn from this unfortunate incident and from this thread and that is that we should ALWAYS have a dash cam in our vehicle.

I doubt things would be going so well for the uber driver right now if he didn't have the video, wouldn't change what happened but for sure it has made things easier for him

 

[Dashmellow]

I doubt things would be going so well for the uber driver right now if he didn't have the video, wouldn't change what happened but for sure it has made things easier for him

Yeah, I guess that was my point. The Uber driver must be thanking his lucky stars for his decision to install that camera. Then again, as a recent Police Academy graduate the notion of having a dash cam may have come from training in police cruisers.