Official Video: Oregon State Police Video Captures Fatal Freeway Shooting

Does anyone think it's strange he had a loaded gun within reach while driving with his kids?

reply to post by Dianec

No, not if he kept it in his waist band or he grabbed it from somewhere in the car before he got out.

Dianec
Does anyone think it's strange he had a loaded gun within reach while driving with his kids?

A person willing to murder the officer over a traffic stop may not be very concerned about the children and whether the gun was near them. Not buying his cared for the kids after seeing this incident.

Dianec
Does anyone think it's strange he had a loaded gun within reach while driving with his kids?

Not at all.
Clearly this man was not fit to be a father at that current point in his life so tell me why it is surprising to you that he had a loaded gun?

Where are all the armchair ATS quarterbacks on this? You know, the people that refuse to blame the criminal for anything ever.

I guess my thoughts on having the gun so close at hand were maybe he was planning to kill himself or do something else with it before getting pulled over - maybe on his way to kill someone else. People carry loaded firearms in their vehicles in some states (don't know what Oregon laws are on that). However, why was it on his person? Was it normal for him to carry it?

It just made me wonder if be was planning something more. He reacted quickly - jumping out in a defensive manner like he did. For whatever reason he did not want that officer approaching his car. How fast was he going? He was pulled over for speeding. In a hurry with a loaded weapon; jumps out ready to defend or hide whatever is in the vehicle.

He was prepared for confrontation. He was in a paranoid state of mind. Just seemed weird to not only have the weapon ready to go but then be hypersensitive when something happens. The officer stated he was being pulled over for speeding. It's as if the guy is trying to figure out "is he just saying that...should I believe him?" What was he hiding? A planned action he was going to take?

reply to post by TucoTheRat


I agree with you, but sadly, I am afraid that this video will be used in Police Academy 101, on why it is important to shoot on sight.

"If you "think" they did wrong, you go with your gut. Shoot them! They don't care about their kids or your kids being without a Dad; so you shouldn't care about their kids either. It will be a wash. IE will back you up. It's a jungle out there and it is your job to protect the law and get back to your kids safe and sound. Don't worry about the rare case of getting it wrong or killing an innocent kid. We are way over populated and it was probably just a matter of time before it was bitten and turned anyway. It is us, against them, and they are all infected deep down in their hearts. Your gut told you to stop them; your gut is never wrong; they are. So you go on out there, track down those monsters, get them before they turn sour; and get home safe. You "are" America's finest.""

Okay, so maybe I stretched it a little. I am still afraid that even a little of that scenario is dangerous thinking and coming soon to a neighborhood near you. If it hasn't all ready arrived.

opethPA

Dianec
Does anyone think it's strange he had a loaded gun within reach while driving with his kids?

Not at all.
Clearly this man was not fit to be a father at that current point in his life so tell me why it is surprising to you that he had a loaded gun?

Where are all the armchair ATS quarterbacks on this? You know, the people that refuse to blame the criminal for anything ever.

edit on 5-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

Where? Right here. And on that note, maybe you're just being ignorant and ridiculously prejudicial with your opinion regarding those of us who speak out against abuse by police. And maybe you should reconsider your stance.

When a cop is in the wrong, I am usually one of the most vocal. Abuse of power and excessive force by police is at an all time high, and is completely disgusting, and I have no respect for those thugs who act like the badge makes them above the law. There have been many threads here (and even more elsewhere) that show these disgusting abuses of power. And usually it's people like yourself who are in the minority. Because usually it is obvious to most of us (who aren't biased) when the police cross the line. Likewise, it's obvious to most of us (who aren't biased) when police are clearly in the right.


This cop? This guy's a hero. And I hope he gets a medal for this! Seriously.


The officer was respectful, and he showed massive restraint. But while showing restraint he was also cautious. He used almost the perfect balance-- something that seems too rarely seen in police work today. And I especially applaud him on his restraint, because if I were him, I could maybe see myself firing before the point at which the officer chose to. So not only was he 100% in the right, and not only is that completely obvious to anyone with working eyeballs, but he may have even gone a little above and beyond with his excellent, commendable handling of the situation.


And that is why you're not going to see the "armchair quarterbacks" as you call them, speaking out against this officer. You may think we're biased-- but from my view that's mainly because you try to twist most situations around, and make it so the cops were "in the right" when clearly they are not. And when we disagree with you, you think we're just cop bashing. Maybe that's not the case at all. Maybe you should reconsider your position, and whether you're actually being reasonable in most of these situations, or instead unfairly siding with the cops when they are clearly in the wrong-- just as you're accusing "us" of doing now.


I think it's kind of telling that the members who are strongly anti-excessive-force / police-abuse such as myself are perfectly willing to concede when the cop was in the right, and the suspect was in the wrong. And yet guys such as yourself, the regular Cop Defenders, will rarely to never concede when there is excessive force. Which is the biased party, again?



Food for thought. I'm sure you'll spit it out, but that makes it no less real.

TucoTheRat
reply to post by Domo1

 

Now this cop is a pro IMHO. He knew from the start what was coming and gave the guy every chance in the world to not do it. Once the guy pulled the gun, the Cop popped him in the chest.

I second that. This cop handled it professionally.

iwilliam

opethPA

Dianec
Does anyone think it's strange he had a loaded gun within reach while driving with his kids?

Not at all.
Clearly this man was not fit to be a father at that current point in his life so tell me why it is surprising to you that he had a loaded gun?

Where are all the armchair ATS quarterbacks on this? You know, the people that refuse to blame the criminal for anything ever.

edit on 5-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

Where? Right here. And on that note, maybe you're just being ignorant and ridiculously prejudicial with your opinion regarding those of us who speak out against abuse by police. And maybe you should reconsider your stance.

When a cop is in the wrong, I am usually one of the most vocal. Abuse of power and excessive force by police is at an all time high, and is completely disgusting, and I have no respect for those thugs who act like the badge makes them above the law. There have been many threads here (and even more elsewhere) that show these disgusting abuses of power. And usually it's people like yourself who are in the minority. Because usually it is obvious to most of us (who aren't biased) when the police cross the line. Likewise, it's obvious to most of us (who aren't biased) when police are clearly in the right.


This cop? This guy's a hero. And I hope he gets a medal for this! Seriously.


The officer was respectful, and he showed massive restraint. But while showing restraint he was also cautious. He used almost the perfect balance-- something that seems too rarely seen in police work today. And I especially applaud him on his restraint, because if I were him, I could maybe see myself firing before the point at which the officer chose to. So not only was he 100% in the right, and not only is that completely obvious to anyone with working eyeballs, but he may have even gone a little above and beyond with his excellent, commendable handling of the situation.


And that is why you're not going to see the "armchair quarterbacks" as you call them, speaking out against this officer. You may think we're biased-- but from my view that's mainly because you try to twist most situations around, and make it so the cops were "in the right" when clearly they are not. And when we disagree with you, you think we're just cop bashing. Maybe that's not the case at all. Maybe you should reconsider your position, and whether you're actually being reasonable in most of these situations, or instead unfairly siding with the cops when they are clearly in the wrong-- just as you're accusing "us" of doing now.


I think it's kind of telling that the members who are strongly anti-excessive-force / police-abuse such as myself are perfectly willing to concede when the cop was in the right, and the suspect was in the wrong. And yet guys such as yourself, the regular Cop Defenders, will rarely to never concede when there is excessive force. Which is the biased party, again?



Food for thought. I'm sure you'll spit it out, but that makes it no less real.

edit on 5-10-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)

Please show me a single post in the past where I blindly defended police abuse of power.
You can't.
Often what I say is that the person that caused a crime is responsible for the outcome of that scenario.
If it's the sad case of the lady yesterday in DC.
The sad case of the lady outside of a WalMart , I think it was that.
The really sad case of the old WW2 vet in his house that fired on the police.

I am 100% against police abuse of power and when I see blatant or unjustified use I call it out.
What I don't do here , which certain folks do, is armchair quarterback and complain how "if i was there i would have done it this way" approach that those same people often use.

Again, i will go back to trying to find a single post that makes me a blind follower of police abuse or one that shows me trying make the cops appear in "the right".

To make it easy I will stay consistent and say the same thing about this specific case that I always do. One person is responsible for the outcome of this event in the OP and that is the criminal that got out of his car.

reply to post by opethPA


I am your curious about your answer to a question that is roiling around in my mind.

Please don't think I am attacking you or even taking sides in your dispute. In fact, this may not even be the proper to discuss this because it isn't directly related to this incident.

I am singling you out because of what you stated about your how you decide on an individual's guilt.

If an officer makes an unlawful stop, or makes an unlawful entry to your home, would the suspect still be responsible if he spooked the cop and was killed?

If a police officer, showing off for his peers, mad at his wife, etc., approaches a person, demands that he follow a bunch of arbitrary requests that he says are laws, and the person becomes frightened and tries to flee or just refuses to do as they are told; are they also responsible for their own demise or injuries?

I am being honest and I am asking you to be honest. I am not attacking you and I am not interested in a debate or even a reason. I just want to know how people with this belief think.

Is a person wrong and responsible for their own death any time they disobey a police officer or person given authority?

Thank you, in advance, if for nothing else listening.

NightSkyeB4Dawn
reply to post by opethPA

 

I am your curious about your answer to a question that is roiling around in my mind.

Please don't think I am attacking you or even taking sides in your dispute. In fact, this may not even be the proper to discuss this because it isn't directly related to this incident.

I am singling you out because of what you stated about your how you decide on an individual's guilt.

If an officer makes an unlawful stop, or makes an unlawful entry to your home, would the suspect still be responsible if he spooked the cop and was killed?

If a police officer, showing off for his peers, mad at his wife, etc., approaches a person, demands that he follow a bunch of arbitrary requests that he says are laws, and the person becomes frightened and tries to flee or just refuses to do as they are told; are they also responsible for their own demise or injuries?

I am being honest and I am asking you to be honest. I am not attacking you and I am not interested in a debate or even a reason. I just want to know how people with this belief think.

Is a person wrong and responsible for their own death any time they disobey a police officer or person given authority?

Thank you, in advance, if for nothing else listening.

Yup..in those cases the LEO would be a responsible party for whatever the outcome. I would expect that those LEOs would be held accountable.

Conversely in the second scenario you gave if the scared person reached for the officers gun while refusing to comply then that person would be responsible for the outcome including their own death or injury.

We could each come up with a billion unrealistic scenarios like this supporting either side.

What I try and do is not armchair QB situations. If I wasn't there and you, not you directly, were not there then neither of us are qualified to speak about what happened. I then try and form my opinion on whatever facts I can see or read about.

Look at the case in DC yesterday , what a sad and horrible story. Yet if the lady did not make the choices she made chances are she would still be alive. No one wins and multiple lives are possibly ruined because of those choices.

Again I have never once said I am pro LEO abuse I just don't subscribe to the belief that criminals are victims when they make really bad and dangerous choices.

madmangunradio
reply to post by Metaphysique

 

** The officer deffinately showed restraint. More than I would have.
That was one odd video.

edit on 10/4/2013 by madmangunradio because: emotions

That is one hell of a video. I totally concur. I think the officer showed incredible restraint, especially since Van Allen's movements were clearly a threat from the moment he stepped out of the car. No matter how much Van Allen was positioning his body to make his right hand behind his back seem natural, it's pretty darn clear that he was utterly prepared to open fire on the officer.

If I recall correctly, this was the second officer in Oregon to get shot during a routine traffic stop in the last year or so. It's always been a very risky task for law enforcement because they never know who is behind the wheel. I'm quite glad that the officer is okay and had his actions deemed justified. He was the one who inflicted the fatal gun shot wound to Van Allen.

As far as Van Allen goes, god only knows what was going on there but his intent was very clear the moment he got out of the car. Extraordinarily disproportionate for a speeding ticket. No mention of any outstanding warrant, drugs in the car, or anything like that. So bizarre.

I just don't subscribe to the belief that criminals are victims when they make really bad and dangerous choices.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


You see it is that part of your comment that I have trouble with.

I tried very hard when I was raising my little ones to teach them that they are responsible for their own actions. I never let them get away with using someone else's behavior as an excuse for their own. But I found myself on a couple occasions in a bit of a quandary, when my child's behavior was out of character, in response to an inappropriate action by their peer.

I had at least two occasions where the old adage "Desperate times, sometimes, call for desperate measures", suddenly became crystal clear.

So when it sounds like people are saying that if a person is harmed or killed because they failed to follow orders given to them by a police officer or by anyone in authority, it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

I agree that if a person decides that they are willing to endure injury or death, rather then to give up their, freedom or relinquish their property and or rights, then the injury or death may have been directly related to their choice. I don't however, agree that the injury or death is their fault, and I believe that they are victims, even if their choice may have been considered a poor or unnecessary choice by someone that would have taken the option to live with the hope they may be able to fight another day.

I am sure every situation is different but I think there many times that an individual that didn't comply to an order given by a cop is indeed a victim, and failure to comply isn't a get out of jail free card. IMHO.

Thank you so much for taking the time to indulge me.

reply to post by Metaphysique

I was under the impression, based on past postings of yours, that you were in LE, should you find that offensive, 'twas not my intent

Not offended at all, just have never claimed to be a cop. Never have been. I'm not well known on ATS, but I don't think anyone who is at all familiar with me would ever say that I've claimed to be a cop.

why civilians of course

I'm a civilian. I've never been in the military, and I've never been a first responder.

Indeed, the right hand kept hidden, would have had me drawing and aiming myself

I think just about anyone, save for the most ardent pacifist, would be doing the same.

I'm sorry? was your name there anywhere?
it's an ATS...
meme? saying? e.g.

Well you replied to me, then used the quote function in that post where you were replying without quoting anyone else. If it had been quotation marks, and not a quote box (reserved for quoting other members) I would have realized.

I'm quite confident that despite your conditioning, you're smart enough to figure it out, unlike the LEO with the pretentious user name* [who seems to have outed you[?]] you're not twisting my post to mean the opposite, whether in his own mind/perception or as a sophistry, your reply though almost goes there, but your relationship to truth got in the way**

* look it up

I don't really know what you mean by conditioning. Clearly I'm not smart enough to figure it out. I wasn't attempting to twist anything, I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say. Where does my reply almost go, what is my relationship to truth, and why did my relationship to truth get in the way?

You seem to take issue with something, I'm asking what that something is. I put up a video of a guy getting into a gunfight on the freeway with a cop. I wondered why he would risk his life, and his children's lives. I don't get what point you're trying to make.

What is your point?

reply to post by madmangunradio


I think 90% of cops these days are evil, authoritarian dicks, and the other 10% are scared, compliant pussies who look the other way for their own sake, but this was a good cop.

NightSkyeB4Dawn

I just don't subscribe to the belief that criminals are victims when they make really bad and dangerous choices.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

You see it is that part of your comment that I have trouble with.

I tried very hard when I was raising my little ones to teach them that they are responsible for their own actions. I never let them get away with using someone else's behavior as an excuse for their own. But I found myself on a couple occasions in a bit of a quandary, when my child's behavior was out of character, in response to an inappropriate action by their peer.

I had at least two occasions where the old adage "Desperate times, sometimes, call for desperate measures", suddenly became crystal clear.

So when it sounds like people are saying that if a person is harmed or killed because they failed to follow orders given to them by a police officer or by anyone in authority, it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

I agree that if a person decides that they are willing to endure injury or death, rather then to give up their, freedom or relinquish their property and or rights, then the injury or death may have been directly related to their choice. I don't however, agree that the injury or death is their fault, and I believe that they are victims, even if their choice may have been considered a poor or unnecessary choice by someone that would have taken the option to live with the hope they may be able to fight another day.

I am sure every situation is different but I think there many times that an individual that didn't comply to an order given by a cop is indeed a victim, and failure to comply isn't a get out of jail free card. IMHO.

Thank you so much for taking the time to indulge me.

Agreed.

die on my feet rather than live on my knees kinda thing.

You can submit, but f**k that. Especially if you should not be submitting in the first place.

reply to post by opethPA


Pertaining to the woman in DC, they could have shot her tires out.

They were pointing their guns RIGHT in her face, they could have tazed her. They saw saw didn't have a weapon. Once again, hey were up close to her face. at one point.

Maybe shoot to incapacitate instead of shoot to kill?

It seems the margins for getting tour ass shot dead by the cops have been dramatically expanded, and some are okay with that.

Not a LEO hater, just saying, cops these days seem to prefer beating and shooting.

But this cop is cool in my, or anyone's book.

NightSkyeB4Dawn

I just don't subscribe to the belief that criminals are victims when they make really bad and dangerous choices.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

You see it is that part of your comment that I have trouble with.

Well, then you are troubled with something that someone else said because, if you review my post, you will find that I never once said that specific quote in it at all. I'm quite sure that you made a mistake in your reply that was unintentional and your remarks are most likely directed towards someone else, not me. I would never in a million years say what you quoted for a whole slew of reasons including a lack of clarity in communication.

P.S. You meant to respond to OpethPA, not I. He was the one that said that.

NightSkyeB4Dawn

I just don't subscribe to the belief that criminals are victims when they make really bad and dangerous choices.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

You see it is that part of your comment that I have trouble with.

I tried very hard when I was raising my little ones to teach them that they are responsible for their own actions. I never let them get away with using someone else's behavior as an excuse for their own. But I found myself on a couple occasions in a bit of a quandary, when my child's behavior was out of character, in response to an inappropriate action by their peer.

I had at least two occasions where the old adage "Desperate times, sometimes, call for desperate measures", suddenly became crystal clear.

So when it sounds like people are saying that if a person is harmed or killed because they failed to follow orders given to them by a police officer or by anyone in authority, it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

I agree that if a person decides that they are willing to endure injury or death, rather then to give up their, freedom or relinquish their property and or rights, then the injury or death may have been directly related to their choice. I don't however, agree that the injury or death is their fault, and I believe that they are victims, even if their choice may have been considered a poor or unnecessary choice by someone that would have taken the option to live with the hope they may be able to fight another day.

I am sure every situation is different but I think there many times that an individual that didn't comply to an order given by a cop is indeed a victim, and failure to comply isn't a get out of jail free card. IMHO.

Thank you so much for taking the time to indulge me.

I respect your opinion and don't agree with the idea that being a criminal is noble like you listed.

" rather then to give up their, freedom or relinquish their property and or rights, then the injury or death may have been directly related to their choice."

If a criminal breaks into a house and the home owner shoots and kills him then he is not a victim.
If a drunk driver dies in an accident he causes then they are not a victim.
The case posted on ATS about two thugs that tried to hold up a store with airguns and a civilian pulled a real gun and told them to drop their weapons and when one of them didnt he shot and killed him. That dead thug is not a victim.

The average person that gets pulled over for speeding and chooses to act like a fool and the cops beat him up.. He is in the middle ..

The guy that incorrectly has a warrant served on his house and in the process of that warrant has everything ruined and his arm broken..100% victim..

reply to post by opethPA


I agree. In the case here, Allen was speeding. He had broken the law. There was no cause for him to open fire on a police officer who had pulled him over for speeding. That is a disproportionate response to the crime. Even if the police officer had found that the weapon that Allen used was an unlicensed weapon and confiscated it (if Allen had stayed in the car and not shot the officer), then Allen still would have knowingly broken a law and would suffer the consequences.

When you buy a car, you register it as per the law, put license plates on it to assist in identification of your vehicle in the case of proving ownership and for possible crime (ie hit and run) and you obey traffic laws. If you do not do any of those things, your vehicle may be impounded and you may be charged. A gun is no different from a car in that both may be used by a user to engage in a crime. Licensing of a car makes it so that your vehicle can be identified. Licensing of a gun makes it so that your gun can be identified.

Really, not a whole lot of difference there. Considering that most guns are legal here in the US, I personally think killing another human being over a piece of replaceable property is over the top. To protect oneself and ones loved ones? Go for it. For something that can be restored or replaced? Hell no.