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

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.

You watch the video again. Try 4:44 & 6:28 for starters.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
You watch the video again. Try 4:44 & 6:28 for starters.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

SO WHAT?? He's using ""forced him to a stop in the roadway" and "forces him off the road" more or less as figures of speech. It has zero relevance to the ultimate outcome of the situation. You seem focused on anything BUT that.
 
Difference of opinion here shows differences of UK and US law and what we'd do.
 
SO WHAT?? He's using ""forced him to a stop in the roadway" and "forces him off the road" more or less as figures of speech. It has zero relevance to the ultimate outcome of the situation. You seem focused on anything BUT that.
Then maybe everything he's saying (and the uber driver too) is a figure of speech, and we can't take a single part of it as being meaningful.

I wasn't even doubting the uber diver's (legal) innocence until I saw the whole presentation and realised how one-sided it was. As for describing the DECEASED as a goofball, it beggars belief.

You don't seem to understand that if we are seeing a short dash cam clip OUT OF CONTEXT then the story is not as clear cut as you think.

What if, when the truck was alongside, there was a discussion, and the uber driver had every reason to think he was NOT in danger, but only had to clear up a misunderstanding? Then what followed would not be justification for shooting.

The sheriff is just repeating much of what the uber driver is saying without fact checking (eg quoting verbatim "forcing off the road"), and presenting it as confirmed truth. For example, that the truck was tailgating with bright lights on. Was that shown in the dash cam video? Oh no, wait, it was facing the wrong way to show that. No mention was made of a second camera.

Did the uber driver literally say: "Hmm. I wonder who this guy is." as the Sheriff states? I doubt it, THAT certainly sounds figurative. I bet he said something else though. What exactly? We need to know to understand the circumstances and what he really felt at that moment.

And I'm not letting go of that "I say somethin" comment. Is that some kind of Americanism that doesn't translate? Or does it indicate an earlier exchange that we NEED to hear to understand the event fully?

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
Then maybe everything he's saying (and the uber driver too) is a figure of speech, and we can't take a single part of it as being meaningful.

I wasn't even doubting the uber diver's (legal) innocence until I saw the whole presentation and realised how one-sided it was. As for describing the DECEASED as a goofball, it beggars belief.

You don't seem to understand that if we are seeing a short dash cam clip OUT OF CONTEXT then the story is not as clear cut as you think.

What if, when the truck was alongside, there was a discussion, and the uber driver had every reason to think he was NOT in danger, but only had to clear up a misunderstanding? Then what followed would not be justification for shooting.

The sheriff is just repeating much of what the uber driver is saying without fact checking (eg quoting verbatim "forcing off the road"), and presenting it as confirmed truth. For example, that the truck was tailgating with bright lights on. Was that shown in the dash cam video? Oh no, wait, it was facing the wrong way to show that. No mention was made of a second camera.

Did the uber driver literally say: "Hmm. I wonder who this guy is." as the Sheriff states? I doubt it, THAT certainly sounds figurative. I bet he said something else though. What exactly? We need to know to understand the circumstances and what he really felt at that moment.

And I'm not letting go of that "I say somethin" comment. Is that some kind of Americanism that doesn't translate? Or does it indicate an earlier exchange that we NEED to hear to understand the event fully?

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I can't believe you are still at this. Wait! I forgot who I am talking to. :rolleyes:
 
the sheriff does seem to shoot from the hip but I'll go out on a limb and say they would have looked at the prior videos and not just the last minute of video, if there was something of relevance you would think that would have been mentioned
 
Then maybe everything he's saying (and the uber driver too) is a figure of speech, and we can't take a single part of it as being meaningful.

I wasn't even doubting the uber diver's (legal) innocence until I saw the whole presentation and realised how one-sided it was. As for describing the DECEASED as a goofball, it beggars belief.

You don't seem to understand that if we are seeing a short dash cam clip OUT OF CONTEXT then the story is not as clear cut as you think.

What if, when the truck was alongside, there was a discussion, and the uber driver had every reason to think he was NOT in danger, but only had to clear up a misunderstanding? Then what followed would not be justification for shooting.

The sheriff is just repeating much of what the uber driver is saying without fact checking (eg quoting verbatim "forcing off the road"), and presenting it as confirmed truth. For example, that the truck was tailgating with bright lights on. Was that shown in the dash cam video? Oh no, wait, it was facing the wrong way to show that. No mention was made of a second camera.

Did the uber driver literally say: "Hmm. I wonder who this guy is." as the Sheriff states? I doubt it, THAT certainly sounds figurative. I bet he said something else though. What exactly? We need to know to understand the circumstances and what he really felt at that moment.

And I'm not letting go of that "I say somethin" comment. Is that some kind of Americanism that doesn't translate? Or does it indicate an earlier exchange that we NEED to hear to understand the event fully?

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I mentioned the inappropriate "Goof Ball" comment too and also suggested that some of the Sheriff's demeanor was indeed unprofessional (and "colorful") but as I also mentioned, he is not the final arbitrator, the State Attorney's office is. In the end a thorough investigation will be conducted and they will act accordingly under the law.
 
the sheriff does seem to shoot from the hip but I'll go out on a limb and say they would have looked at the prior videos and not just the last minute of video, if there was something of relevance you would think that would have been mentioned
Oh, I'm certain they did look at the earlier video.

I'm no longer certain they would reveal anything that could make their "certified police officer in waiting" look bad.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
I can't believe you are still at this. Wait! I forgot who I am talking to. :rolleyes:
That's right. You're talking to someone who stands his ground. You never like that, do you?

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
That's right. You're talking to someone who stands his ground. You never like that, do you?

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

As always, you are on shaky ground with your arguments. Only you would turn a thread discussion like this into a petty pissing match, despite the obvious facts.
 
As always, you are on shaky ground with your arguments. Only you would turn a thread discussion like this into a petty pissing match, despite the obvious facts.
I've argued both sides of the case. Because I know how to be objective.
Discussing the subject is not a pissing match - until someone like you makes it personal because you can't handle a dissenting view. HOW DARE ANYONE DISAGREE WITH DASHMELLOW!!!

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
I've argued both sides of the case. Because I know how to be objective.
Discussing the subject is not a pissing match - until someone like you makes it personal because you can't handle a dissenting view. HOW DARE ANYONE DISAGREE WITH DASHMELLOW!!!

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

I have no interest in allowing you to bait me into one of your pointless, self righteous, pointless little arguments. I have better things to do with my time. Go away.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I'm certain they did look at the earlier video.

I'm no longer certain they would reveal anything that could make their "certified police officer in waiting" look bad.

This exactly. This is Florida, and this way of doing things happens there on a regular basis. Evidence gets ignored and even destroyed to gain the outcome they want. Their LE has went back to how things worked in the south 60 years ago and I will have no part of that. And yes, I have personal knowledge regards this concerning a relative who has experienced it. Their mind is made up and they will not let facts or evidence get in the way of that.

Phil
 
1, I am proud of DDPai mini2 that provided the key evidence;

2, Let the truth speak, a dashcam installed is very necessary;

3, Welcome any questions about DDPai mini2 dash cam.
 
I'll go with the Sheriff on this one - Don't mess with people !
A) You do not have the right to endanger others ( Car )
B) You do not have the right to threaten people
C) In some places in the World , you have the right to defend yourself against idiots , resulting in the death of the idiot .
Yes you have the right to be stupid ! I wont argue with that ... But stupid can result in death !
Far better that stupid - ignorant - criminals die ! Than innocent people ...

So from the perspective of the driver ...

Some one is following you !
That some one forces you off the road !
There is no prior incident or wrong doing on the part of the UBER
The person gets out of the car and threatens you
When they claim to have a gun and make a move like they have a gun .............!!!!!
As far as Im concerned the idiot committed suicide ..
Good bye stupid !
 
The Uber guy is 38. I'm not sure what his prospects were for getting into a police department were, anyway? (Except a small, rural department)

I'm not sure how the 'pay your own way to the academy' system works? It didn't exist when I was younger, and working in related fields. You didn't get to go to an actual academy unless you were hired and sponsored by a department.

It depends. I have seen an 51 year old Irish guy go through full police academy which is 1220+ hours (8+ months) with no problem. I have also knew another guy who was a retired navy chief and 49. He was in amazing shape, running 5 miles several days a week before his 9-10 hour academy days(same 1220 hour academy). He only failed out due to poor eye sight and not being able to hit a target from 25 yards. I know of yet another who became a full time police officer at 52 after being reserve for years.

Right now is a great time to join police departments. My state also allows one to self sponsor which helps to get hired with smaller departments which do not sponsor. It's a 6 month commitment and costs maybe 5-10k (not including rent/food/etc).
 
Tip my hat to any wanting to work what i find are probably one of the most ungrateful jobs in the world, i just wish i could do the same to politicians which should be in a even more ungrateful position, but it seem like they are not possible to dislodge when they first get into that "job"
Becoming a cop here is just another education, and it should not cost you a dime to get that education, actually like all other educations you will be paid to take that education.

Hehe i some times think we Danes, we are probably more socialist then any communist country you can mention have ever been. :giggle:
 
In my experience here, a police academy certificate has a much higher return on investment than many bachelor degrees (with exception of degrees in computer science and degrees used in similar fields like math/physics/etc) and even many master degrees. When you consider that most departments only require HS diploma and 6-12 months of community college credits and pay upwards of 140k base salary plus a ton of overtime where some guys top 200k then you can really appreciate the earning potential of a career which is thought of as blue collar.
 
Not here in SC. The better jobs want you to have experience, and the best ones you can get straight out of school are around $30K for a couple years, with small towns about 2/3 of that and the smallest towns even less. Raises are not significant and only a rise in rank gets you a decent wage. You do get some perks if you go for them like free meals on duty and free rent at some apartments if you will act as security for them off-duty. And there's money to be made serving legal papers off-duty too. Still not a good career choice compared to working for one of the now many major manufacturers.

Phil
 
Back
Top