Road Rage involving Oak Ridge officers in Knoxville

[Guest drwright6]

Bad cops.....no donuts

[sparksjr]

whoa, cops getting away (possibly) with stuff the general public cant. no way.

[R_Bert]

whoa, cops getting away (possibly) with stuff the general public cant. no way.

Probably not.

The department is probably considering the effects release of the names and information will have on "projects".

[R_Bert]

I am reminded, the KNS reporter should be back from vacation the last day or so.....

[sparksjr]

Probably not.

it would be refreshing...

[diablo982]

I heard something from a person I consider to be a reliable source. I debated posting it on the internet because it's short on details and hasn't been verified by anyone else, so take it for what it's worth:

1. The "victim" in this case is a parolee from Texas with multiple felony convictions

2. He is described physically as a "big guy."

3. Witnesses are not supporting his version of events

Here's my take on the three things I was told. If it's true about the victim and his lengthy criminal history, he will be a nightmare witness for the prosecution. If the defense attorney can get his criminal record into evidence, it looks awful to the jury and shows he might be biased against cops. I don't know what is considered a "big guy", but if he is much larger, taller, muscular than the officer he had a confrontation with, the officer would have a reasonable defense that he felt threatened by the alleged victim. Finally, I don't know if the lack of witness support means they couldn't find witnesses, or if the witnesses said Estep started the confrontation, got out of his car first, etc. If Estep started the confrontation, this case is going nowhere. If there are no independent witnesses, then it's a convict's word against a veteran police officer's word.

I didn't post this sooner because I wanted to see if the officer was indicted first. Since so much time has passed with no action, I'm starting to believe what I heard. This case should have gone before the grand jury by this point if it was going to happen at all. It will be interesting to see if someone will make an official announcement about the findings.

[TMF]

I heard something from a person I consider to be a reliable source. I debated posting it on the internet because it's short on details and hasn't been verified by anyone else, so take it for what it's worth:

1. The "victim" in this case is a parolee from Texas with multiple felony convictions

2. He is described physically as a "big guy."

3. Witnesses are not supporting his version of events

Here's my take on the three things I was told. If it's true about the victim and his lengthy criminal history, he will be a nightmare witness for the prosecution. If the defense attorney can get his criminal record into evidence, it looks awful to the jury and shows he might be biased against cops. I don't know what is considered a "big guy", but if he is much larger, taller, muscular than the officer he had a confrontation with, the officer would have a reasonable defense that he felt threatened by the alleged victim. Finally, I don't know if the lack of witness support means they couldn't find witnesses, or if the witnesses said Estep started the confrontation, got out of his car first, etc. If Estep started the confrontation, this case is going nowhere. If there are no independent witnesses, then it's a convict's word against a veteran police officer's word.

I didn't post this sooner because I wanted to see if the officer was indicted first. Since so much time has passed with no action, I'm starting to believe what I heard. This case should have gone before the grand jury by this point if it was going to happen at all. It will be interesting to see if someone will make an official announcement about the findings.

Based on his comments to the media I assumed from the start that Estep was no "choir boy" but if his account is true then that doesn't excuse the two officers. They still have to behave themselves. If I was in an altercation with a larger person and was partially responsible for instigating the incident I wouldn't be justified in pulling a weapon, especially if there were two of me. His criminal record shouldn't come into play here. It should simply be the testimony of the two officers, Estep, independent witnesses and HOPEFULLY video tape evidence. Estep being a convict doesn't mean that these officers didn't commit a crime.

[DaveTN]

His criminal record shouldn't come into play here.

Sure it should. He isn’t on trial here and it isn’t being used against him. It goes to credibility. If it can be shown that he is a liar the jury will kick out everything he has to say. Same as if a cop has been proven to be liar; it opens up his previous cases. “Beyond reasonable doubtâ€; it would apply to you and it should apply to these cops.

If the witnesses are not supporting what he says; there is no case. There wouldn’t be for you and there shouldn’t be for these cops.

[billyscott]

Diablo. I can see points 1 and 3 being valid if they are true. Does anyone know of a way the check Texas records to see if Estep does have multiple or even one conviction? As far as the time elapsed I would think if the DA has decided not to take action that would be worthy of an announcement to the press.

[E4 No More]

Sure it should. He isn’t on trial here and it isn’t being used against him. It goes to credibility. If it can be shown that he is a liar the jury will kick out everything he has to say. Same as if a cop has been proven to be liar; it opens up his previous cases. “Beyond reasonable doubt”; it would apply to you and it should apply to these cops.

If the witnesses are not supporting what he says; there is no case. There wouldn’t be for you and there shouldn’t be for these cops.

Yep, just like a rape victim who wasn't a virgin when she was raped.

[chances R]

As always there are two sides to the story. The initial story apparently is not factual. I have heard a version of the 'other side' by someone close to one of the officers. If true, and I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle, then this will probably fade away.

[DaveTN]

Yep, just like a rape victim who wasn't a virgin when she was raped.

You quoted me in your post, but I don’t get it. What does that have to do with anything???

[TMF]

Sure it should. He isn’t on trial here and it isn’t being used against him. It goes to credibility. If it can be shown that he is a liar the jury will kick out everything he has to say. Same as if a cop has been proven to be liar; it opens up his previous cases. “Beyond reasonable doubtâ€; it would apply to you and it should apply to these cops.

If the witnesses are not supporting what he says; there is no case. There wouldn’t be for you and there shouldn’t be for these cops.

Stories/versions aside, if the facts of the case are that one or both of the officers pulled their weapon they'd better have a DAMN good reason for doing it. Police Officers should be held to a higher standard than us, not a lower one, and they shouldn't get a pass when breaking the law. Unless they were able to articulate how Estep was threatening them to the point they used the threat of deadly force they should have been charged. If Estep is a convict then this case is over which is BS. I'm not a bleeding heart here, I'm sure Estep is an a**hole, but it still doesn't excuse the officers if they didn't have good reason to pull their weapons. I've been known to be an a**hole too, and if two guys pulled their guns on me for such I'm gonna burn them down. Where would that leave me if they turned out to be off duty officers???

The smoke and mirrors of bringing in facts that have nothing to do with the facts of the case is what is wrong with our legal system. If it is a fact that one or more pulled their weapons on this guy they should be able to justify it; if they can't they are guilty of a crime... very simple.

[diablo982]

Stories/versions aside, if the facts of the case are that one or both of the officers pulled their weapon they'd better have a DAMN good reason for doing it. Police Officers should be held to a higher standard than us, not a lower one, and they shouldn't get a pass when breaking the law. Unless they were able to articulate how Estep was threatening them to the point they used the threat of deadly force they should have been charged. If Estep is a convict then this case is over which is BS. I'm not a bleeding heart here, I'm sure Estep is an a**hole, but it still doesn't excuse the officers if they didn't have good reason to pull their weapons. I've been known to be an a**hole too, and if two guys pulled their guns on me for such I'm gonna burn them down. Where would that leave me if they turned out to be off duty officers???

The smoke and mirrors of bringing in facts that have nothing to do with the facts of the case is what is wrong with our legal system. If it is a fact that one or more pulled their weapons on this guy they should be able to justify it; if they can't they are guilty of a crime... very simple.

You are on point with "the facts of the case", but that is exactly what this comes down to. There is no smoke and mirrors with helping a jury decide who is credible and who is not. Barring independent witnesses, it's a convicted felon's word against a non-convicted felon's word. If I'm on a jury, I'm sorry but I am giving no weight to any felon's testimony unless it can be backed up by someone else. (If an LEO has previously lied or provided false information under oath or in a report, I'm giving no weight to their testimony either.)

There's another active post on this forum where the OP had cars approach him from the front and back and "pin him in." Two guys with "hoodies" jumped out and quickly approach his car. He brandished a gun and they went back to their cars and raced off. What if the occupants complained on the poster and he was arrested for aggravated assault? If you were on the jury, do you think it would be relevant to know that one of the "hoodies" served time for armed robbery and the other guy had a felony weapons conviction? For that matter, if you were the District Attorney and you knew about the victim's past record, would you even let this case go before a grand jury?

[TMF]

There's another active post on this forum where the OP had cars approach him from the front and back and "pin him in." Two guys with "hoodies" jumped out and quickly approach his car. He brandished a gun and they went back to their cars and raced off. What if the occupants complained on the poster and he was arrested for aggravated assault? If you were on the jury, do you think it would be relevant to know that one of the "hoodies" served time for armed robbery and the other guy had a felony weapons conviction? For that matter, if you were the District Attorney and you knew about the victim's past record, would you even let this case go before a grand jury?

I get what you're saying, and in the case you cited above the individual was indeed justified in pulling a weapon. In the case of these two officers that remains to be seen. Unfortunately we don't know the statements of the officers. Maybe they said they didn't pull their weapons at all. The story claims there is a witness to the events, and I would think that there are a lot more due to the volume of traffic. If one of these independent witnesses claims that one/both pulled their weapons then they need to be able to explain why. If he wasn't presenting a threat then they committed a crime.

I'm not trying to bash Police, but understand that there are those out there that would abuse their position, and there are those out there that will sweep those events under the rug. I don't want to see that happen because it sets a precedent for those officers and other officers that may be apt to abuse their power. I don't think that being a felon means that no one can be guilty of committing a crime against that person.

Just think, if this happened the way it was orginally reported, what if it was someone with a HCP? These officers weren't in uniform, so if it happened to me I'd defend myself. In that case the DA would seek to fry me even though I wasn't the person who pulled a gun first.

So I say once again, UNLESS HE WAS PRESENTING HIMSELF AS A DEADLY THREAT THESE OFFICERS WERE WRONG. That is the root of the issue. I have a hard time believing that ONE man who is UNARMED presents a deadly threat to TWO men.

[Pain103]

I have a hard time believing that ONE man who is UNARMED presents a deadly threat to TWO men.

You sir have not heard of the great Chuck Norris! lol Had to throw that in there and break up the uptight conversation.

[Guest airborne1525]

You are on point with "the facts of the case", but that is exactly what this comes down to. There is no smoke and mirrors with helping a jury decide who is credible and who is not. Barring independent witnesses, it's a convicted felon's word against a non-convicted felon's word. If I'm on a jury, I'm sorry but I am giving no weight to any felon's testimony unless it can be backed up by someone else. (If an LEO has previously lied or provided false information under oath or in a report, I'm giving no weight to their testimony either.)

There's another active post on this forum where the OP had cars approach him from the front and back and "pin him in." Two guys with "hoodies" jumped out and quickly approach his car. He brandished a gun and they went back to their cars and raced off. What if the occupants complained on the poster and he was arrested for aggravated assault? If you were on the jury, do you think it would be relevant to know that one of the "hoodies" served time for armed robbery and the other guy had a felony weapons conviction? For that matter, if you were the District Attorney and you knew about the victim's past record, would you even let this case go before a grand jury?

So if a person has a felony, it's ok for off duty officers to pull guns for no reason? If this did happen the way it has been reported, the officers had no clue who they were assaulting by pulling weapons. Yes I said assaulting cause that is what it would be called if someone without a badge did it.

[Guest bkelm18]

You are on point with "the facts of the case", but that is exactly what this comes down to. There is no smoke and mirrors with helping a jury decide who is credible and who is not. Barring independent witnesses, it's a convicted felon's word against a non-convicted felon's word. If I'm on a jury, I'm sorry but I am giving no weight to any felon's testimony unless it can be backed up by someone else. (If an LEO has previously lied or provided false information under oath or in a report, I'm giving no weight to their testimony either.)

I'm giving no weight to anyone's testimony without corroboration. A person's past has no bearing on the truth. Cop or felon, no one gets a free pass and no one gets a pre-judgement. If the felon can't back up his story and the cop can, then the felon has a problem. Likewise if the felon can back up his story and the cop can't, then the cop has a problem. Just because a person wears a shield, that doesn't make him the authority on matters, and just because a person is a felon, that doesn't mean he's automatically a cheat and a liar.

[DaveTN]

I've been known to be an a**hole too, and if two guys pulled their guns on me for such I'm gonna burn them down. Where would that leave me if they turned out to be off duty officers???

Pulling a gun on two guys that have guns pointed at you would probably; leave you dead or in the hospital; cops or not.

The smoke and mirrors of bringing in facts that have nothing to do with the facts of the case is what is wrong with our legal system. If it is a fact that one or more pulled their weapons on this guy they should be able to justify it; if they can't they are guilty of a crime... very simple.

If a guy stopped his truck in front of you and jumped out in a threating manner, and you pulled a gun on him, with him armed or not, ….. I couldn’t care less. I wouldn’t care if you did it and I don’t care if these cops did it. It wasn’t the “use of deadly force†period. No one was shot.

If that guy jumped out first, and that’s what the witnesses say; it’s over, there is no case. There should be no case if it was you and there should be no case just because they are cops.

You don’t have to be justified in the use of deadly force to pull a weapon; you have to be justified to shoot someone.

If I had been the responding Officer and you told me that you had exchanged gestures with that guy and when he stopped ahead of you at the light, he jumped out of his truck and approached your vehicle, and that you displayed your weapon; I wouldn’t arrest you. You didn’t start it and you didn’t use deadly force.

Now, if you jumped out first, and then he jumped out and you pulled a gun; you are going to jail.

From your remarks it sounds like you want to be opened minded about it; but you aren’t. You are being blinded by the fact these guys are cops.

I don’t want to see everyone that pulls a gun on someone to protect themselves to go to trial, just because a gun was pulled. Force these guys to trial just because they are cops or just because a gun was pulled and the same will happen to everyone else.

I’m not taking sides here; we are playing a game of discussing possible scenarios. And when we only have one side, part of that game has to be that this guy is lying. If a convicted felon who has been arrested for a road rage incident before makes a claim against you; and you are a citizen with a clean record, that has to be taken into consideration. I’m sorry if you feel that someone’s past shouldn’t be able to be brought up in court to impeach their testimony; but it’s done every day.

No one was hurt, everyone went home. As a DA I’m not going to arrest anyone or destroy any careers simply because a gun was pulled, unless I have good solid evidence of what happened.

Do we have an innocent victim here? Should we go to trial because a gun was pulled? Should we go to trial because off duty cops were involved?

[TMF]

Pulling a gun on two guys that have guns pointed at you would probably; leave you dead or in the hospital; cops or not.

My choice to die standing up rather than die laying down is irrelevant.

You don’t have to be justified in the use of deadly force to pull a weapon; you have to be justified to shoot someone.

If I had been the responding Officer and you told me that you had exchanged gestures with that guy and when he stopped ahead of you at the light, he jumped out of his truck and approached your vehicle, and that you displayed your weapon; I wouldn’t arrest you. You didn’t start it and you didn’t use deadly force.

Now, if you jumped out first, and then he jumped out and you pulled a gun; you are going to jail.

From your remarks it sounds like you want to be opened minded about it; but you aren’t. You are being blinded by the fact these guys are cops.

I don’t want to see everyone that pulls a gun on someone to protect themselves to go to trial, just because a gun was pulled. Force these guys to trial just because they are cops or just because a gun was pulled and the same will happen to everyone else.

I’m not taking sides here; we are playing a game of discussing possible scenarios. And when we only have one side, part of that game has to be that this guy is lying. If a convicted felon who has been arrested for a road rage incident before makes a claim against you; and you are a citizen with a clean record, that has to be taken into consideration. I’m sorry if you feel that someone’s past shouldn’t be able to be brought up in court to impeach their testimony; but it’s done every day.

No one was hurt, everyone went home. As a DA I’m not going to arrest anyone or destroy any careers simply because a gun was pulled, unless I have good solid evidence of what happened.

Do we have an innocent victim here? Should we go to trial because a gun was pulled? Should we go to trial because off duty cops were involved?

No, I'm not clouded by the fact these are LEOs. I have some pretty deep respect for law enforcement, and hell, my father is rounding out a 30 year career in law enforcement here in a few months. This isn't about LEO bashing. I do know that there are bad LEOs, and based on what was reported so far I have a stronger reason to suspect these officers committed a crime than not. The root fact here is whether they were justified in pulling their weapons. I think it would be hard to prove that they were. The alleged victim would have to of been pretty threatening for two men to think they had to pull their weapons to protect themselves. And yes, you do have to have justification to pull a weapon on someone, otherwise it IS a crime. If it wasn't then I'd be pretty comfortable pulling my gun out everytime someone gave me the bird.

I am pretty open minded about this. I'm sure the alleged victim is quite the a**hole. If the story included witness statements of his behavior being threatening, or that he threatened the two officers then I'd be on the other side of the issue. But as far as I know this man was followed by the officers, they got out of their vehicle, he did in kind and they pulled their weapons. That story suggest that the LEOs instigated the whole thing, and all the alleged victim did was react. You said it yourself right here:

Now, if you jumped out first, and then he jumped out and you pulled a gun; you are going to jail.

Is this not the scenario originally reported? If that is true even you would arrest him. So that is what needs to be found out. I would expect anyone who did this to be prosecuted; the fact that they are LEOs is an issue simply because many of us think that it will be swept under the rug.

[R_Bert]

I am impressed that this has had nearly 6000 views.

Maybe won't go away so quietly.

[sparksjr]

And yes, you do have to have justification to pull a weapon on someone, otherwise it IS a crime. If it wasn't then I'd be pretty comfortable pulling my gun out everytime someone gave me the bird.

That's it right there. Citizen or officer, you can't just go pointing a gun at someone. If the roles were reversed you can bet that Mr Citizen is taken to jail on the spot. On duty or not, officers should be held to at least the same standard as the rest of us (wishful thinking).

[DaveTN]

My choice to die standing up rather than die laying down is irrelevant.

No, I'm not clouded by the fact these are LEOs. I have some pretty deep respect for law enforcement, and hell, my father is rounding out a 30 year career in law enforcement here in a few months. This isn't about LEO bashing. I do know that there are bad LEOs, and based on what was reported so far I have a stronger reason to suspect these officers committed a crime than not. The root fact here is whether they were justified in pulling their weapons. I think it would be hard to prove that they were. The alleged victim would have to of been pretty threatening for two men to think they had to pull their weapons to protect themselves. And yes, you do have to have justification to pull a weapon on someone, otherwise it IS a crime. If it wasn't then I'd be pretty comfortable pulling my gun out everytime someone gave me the bird.

I am pretty open minded about this. I'm sure the alleged victim is quite the a**hole. If the story included witness statements of his behavior being threatening, or that he threatened the two officers then I'd be on the other side of the issue. But as far as I know this man was followed by the officers, they got out of their vehicle, he did in kind and they pulled their weapons. That story suggest that the LEOs instigated the whole thing, and all the alleged victim did was react. You said it yourself right here:

Is this not the scenario originally reported? If that is true even you would arrest him. So that is what needs to be found out. I would expect anyone who did this to be prosecuted; the fact that they are LEOs is an issue simply because many of us think that it will be swept under the rug.

What facts? You don’t have the facts; I’ve been waiting to hear the other side of the story let alone the facts.

If he jumped out first; these cops walk on criminal charges. No deadly force was used so it’s not going to turn into an argument about the use of deadly force.

If some dirt bag jumped out on you and you showed him a gun and he backed off and left; we aren’t going to have a conversation about whether you were in fear of your life or not. We are going to have a conversation on whether or not you were a willing participant involved in escalating the situation, and whether or not you committed an assault while using or displaying a deadly weapon (Aggravated Assault). I have a mile wide leeway for the displaying of anything that ends an assault, if it is not deployed.

As I said in post #189, I only have two questions: Who jumped out first, and if a gun was pulled did the Officers report it.

If he jumped out of his truck first at that light, approached that vehicle, and found himself starring down the barrel of a gun; boo freaking who. There is no criminal case. If you want to believe you would have been arrested for doing that; so be it. They can arrest you for anything; I wouldn’t, but I’m not a cop anymore.

If the cops badge whipped him and told him to leave, he may have seen a gun that wasn’t deployed and decided to say they pulled a “Glock†on him.

The other piece of information I would like to have is; did they report this. That is not addressed anywhere. The cops are and the investigators are not making any public statements and of course that is being seen as a “Cover-upâ€.

We now have a forum member that is saying he knows someone that is saying the witnesses are in conflict with what the “victim†is saying. Fact, fiction, or internet BS: we have no idea.

I’m not taking sides and as I said these Officers face double jeopardy. Right now we are discussing criminal charges; they have the same rights that you have. If it’s a weak case; dump it. Then they get to face their Chief and Department. He can decide that whether a crime was committed or not they were involved in conduct unbecoming a Police Officer and he can do anything from suspending them to firing them.

It is a better conversation than “Can I ship a handgun across state lines without using an FFL?†though isn’t it.

[billyscott]

I agree with Dave. This has been the best thread I've been on.

Now here's another question, what if the witness testimony and video evidence shows that Estep lied?

Isn't it a felony, class E I think, to file a false police report?

If so he should be prosecuted. I don't want him making false charges against me or anybody else.

[DaveTN]

Now here's another question, what if the witness testimony and video evidence shows that Estep lied?

Isn't it a felony, class E I think, to file a false police report?

If so he should be prosecuted. I don't want him making false charges against me or anybody else.

Yes, it’s a felony to file a false Police report. However, DA’s are generally not quick to file that charge in a complaint against a Police Officer because (as you can see here) of the way it appears.

If there is good evidence (Witnesses or video) that he is lying or embellishing what happened; it will probably end up in civil court with the Officers suing him. “Preponderance of the evidence†trumps “Beyond reasonable doubt†any day. If that becomes the case, not naming the Officers involved will help him; not the Officers.