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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.