Jump to content

Florida Uber driver shoots stalker


Euler

Recommended Posts

CNN

After a heated text message exchange with his on-again, off-again girlfriend, Jason Boek followed an Uber he thought was giving her a ride home.

...

Then, Boek jumped out of his truck and quickly walked toward [uber driver] Westlake's Hyundai Elantra.

 

"You know I got a pistol?" Boek said, holding an object in the air. "You want me to f*ck*ng shoot you?"

 

Bang. With one shot, the Uber driver killed him.

 

The fatal confrontation, captured on Westlake's dash camera, was what the Polk County sheriff called a "classic 'stand your ground' case," referring to the controversial Florida law that grants immunity to people acting in self-defense.

 

"This is a justifiable homicide all day long. You have the right protect yourself," Sheriff Grady Judd said Wednesday. "This was the intent of the law."

 

Boek, 34, didn't actually have a firearm when he left his truck -- he was holding a cell phone, authorities said.

...

The sheriff's office said Westlake is cooperating with the investigation. And the sheriff wanted this much to be clear: "Here's a message for the hotheads of the community: Don't do that stuff," Judd said. "Good people carry guns and they will shoot you. A lot. Graveyard dead."

...

"The boyfriend is explosive," Judd, the sheriff, said. "He's stalking his girlfriend. He's angry with her, and he tells her, 'I'm going to eff up the Uber driver.'"

...

Uber, in a statement, said: "We are saddened by this unfortunate incident and will continue to work with police on their investigation."

 

The company's policy prohibits drivers and passengers from carrying firearms while using the Uber app to the extent permitted by local law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that earlier.

 

People are just so stupid these days. Don't put yourself in situations where you are likely to get shot. Don't put other people in situations where they may have to shoot you over dumb crap.

 

Don't run someone off the road and threaten them with a gun....you may end up catching a hot one.

 

Yes, after watching the video over and over again, it is clear the boyfriend had a phone. But I'm sure that "in the moment, in real time" (at night), to the shooter, it was simply something shiny and black, and some hothead nut job just forced me to pull over and threatened me.

 

SMH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, after watching the video over and over again, it is clear the boyfriend had a phone. But I'm sure that "in the moment, in real time" (at night), to the shooter, it was simply something shiny and black, and some hothead nut job just forced me to pull over and threatened me.

 

The aggressor's prior actions with his vehicle and his clear threat of having a gun & threating to use it is sufficient to invoke a fear for great bodily harm or death under FL law, regardless of what he was holding in his hand even if it was identified as a phone prior to shooting, as the victim had no way to know what else the aggressor might have been concealing... This is further supported in the victims 911 call where he claims that the aggressor reached towards his waistband, just prior to the shot, a moment in time just outside the view of the camera... IMO a textbook case of what the law was intended for...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine you are just driving and minding your own business and some a-hole cuts you off, slams on his brakes, exits his vehicle and goes straight for you saying "You know I got a pistol? You want me to *** shoot you?" All while it was dark out and he was holding something black/dark in his hand outwards towards you?

 

Yea, I would be fearful for my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, after watching the video over and over again, it is clear the boyfriend had a phone. But I'm sure that "in the moment, in real time" (at night), to the shooter, it was simply something shiny and black, and some hothead nut job just forced me to pull over and threatened me.

 

The aggressor's prior actions with his vehicle and his clear threat of having a gun & threating to use it is sufficient to invoke a fear for great bodily harm or death under FL law, regardless of what he was holding in his hand even if it was identified as a phone prior to shooting, as the victim had no way to know what else the aggressor might have been concealing... This is further supported in the victims 911 call where he claims that the aggressor reached towards his waistband, just prior to the shot, a moment in time just outside the view of the camera... IMO a textbook case of what the law was intended for...

 

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't questioning the shooter. It was more of a stream of consciousness/inner monologue that I happened to type out.

 

I was trying to place myself in the shooter's shoes, but it is difficult without being there. Hindsight is 20/20. Nutjob did not have a gun on him (or in the truck). I understand that it does not matter because nutjob made the threats....but the shooter has to live with the end result.

 

Placing myself in the shoes of the shooter, what is he thinking today (from the comfort of his home) when HE sees the video?

 

I would feel both angry and guilty at having been in the position to have to decide to take the life of an unarmed man because said idiot was so damn stupid. The decision was justified, but I would just keep thinking..."you freaking idiot, why did you force me to do that? "

 

 

(again, more stream of consciousness here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the uber driver violated uber,s policy on carrying while working.he may loose his job but he is alive,screw uber.if they fire him he should get a lawyer and sue.

 

Ironically Uber policy says "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and their guests, as well as driver and delivery partners, from carrying firearms of any kind while using our app*" in this instance, it was the firearm that assured what they claim they desire, not the lack of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the uber driver violated uber,s policy on carrying while working.he may loose his job but he is alive,screw uber.if they fire him he should get a lawyer and sue.

 

 

 

Ironically Uber policy says "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and their guests, as well as driver and delivery partners, from carrying firearms of any kind while using our app*" in this instance, it was the firearm that assured what they claim they desire, not the lack of.

Maybe they should ban other drivers from carrying while on the road in the vicinity of Uber drivers.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the exact quote from the sheriff......The Uber driver did the right thing to protect himself and his passenger,” Judd said. “Leave people alone. Good people carry guns, and they will shoot you.”

Especially since he had a passenger. It wasn't only his life on the line.

 

There's a lot to be said for dash cams. In this instance it gives the Uber driver a credible witness as opposed to the drinky girl in the back seat.

 

Screw Uber's no guns policy. This guy will have departments lining up for him with job offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... This guy will have departments lining up for him with job offers.

I'm not sure about that. I would expect they will wait until the case is entirely resolved. Consider if he were already a police officer and got involved in a shooting. His department would stick him on a desk until the investigation was resolved. There doesn't seem to be much dispute about the facts of this case, so I doubt it will take very long to finalize everything officially, but I would still not be surprised if departments waited to offer him a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed that was in Florida....damn. Chiraq has nothing on Florida.

 

I better go ahead and get FL CCL before I head there in January on vacation.

Err, check your body counts.

And when in FLA , check for an identifying sticker on your rental car.

 

Florida's Miami-Dade and Disneyworld areas do have a lot of criime, and crime of opportunity on other persons dropped dramatically following FL's CCW enactment. So the criminals starting preying more on tourists, and one marker was the familiar logo of the rental car company, which indicated the people in the car were most likely to be unarmed.

 

Rental cars no longer have those stickers, pretty much everywhere in the USA.

 

And Florida's cracker country is overrun with crazed meth-head zombies.

 

 

 

But FL has nothing on Chicago.

Gangs shoot each other for being in the wrong gang, gangs shoot civilians for not being in a gang.

The reduced police staffing levels ensure that the street urchins can run as they wish in the tourist traps,

there's no longer a "nice place" in the downtown.\

 

A few weeks ago one of the major news outlets starting referring to "mass shootings" in terms of Chicago's weekly violence,

well, the city capped that off fairly quickly. But still every weekend there's a body count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's good shootin! Is it messed up that I laughed a little?

 

Hey there now! Let's not disrespect the dead! There is a special place in hades for folks like that! Wait, eh wrong thread. Carry on....

 

Difference is this guy was attempting to do bodily harm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yes, after watching the video over and over again, it is clear the boyfriend had a phone. But I'm sure that "in the moment, in real time" (at night), to the shooter, it was simply something shiny and black, and some hothead nut job just forced me to pull over and threatened me.

 

 

 

The aggressor's prior actions with his vehicle and his clear threat of having a gun & threating to use it is sufficient to invoke a fear for great bodily harm or death under FL law, regardless of what he was holding in his hand even if it was identified as a phone prior to shooting, as the victim had no way to know what else the aggressor might have been concealing... This is further supported in the victims 911 call where he claims that the aggressor reached towards his waistband, just prior to the shot, a moment in time just outside the view of the camera... IMO a textbook case of what the law was intended for...

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't questioning the shooter. It was more of a stream of consciousness/inner monologue that I happened to type out.

 

I was trying to place myself in the shooter's shoes, but it is difficult without being there. Hindsight is 20/20. Nutjob did not have a gun on him (or in the truck). I understand that it does not matter because nutjob made the threats....but the shooter has to live with the end result.

 

Placing myself in the shoes of the shooter, what is he thinking today (from the comfort of his home) when HE sees the video?

 

I would feel both angry and guilty at having been in the position to have to decide to take the life of an unarmed man because said idiot was so damn stupid. The decision was justified, but I would just keep thinking..."you freaking idiot, why did you force me to do that? "

 

 

(again, more stream of consciousness here).

This is the mindset you should have. The bad guy forced me to kill him. There was no other choice. The bad guy made the decision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he didn't have a concealed carry license and he instead rammed him with the car, what kind of conversation would we be having?

 

Some people would say "He didn't have to put it in reverse and run him over 2 more times", and other people would say "Yes he did, unless the Uber driver knew with certainty that Boek was incapacitated, the Uber driver ran the risk of Boek pursuing him in his truck shooting at him and trying to kill him by running him off the road."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be hilarious if Uber was stupid enough to discriminate against off-duty cops using this policy since such discrimination is illegal under Texas law. The reason that it is hilarious is because the state would persue legal action.

They ARE that stupid. I know one who quit Uber over it. Dumber even than the CPZ signs; in Uber's case, its "POLICY" will keep criminals with guns away (if not certain rape-inclined drivers) ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the title shows CNN's anti-Second Amendment bias.

 

The title is:

 

'You know I got a pistol?' the man yelled. So the Uber driver shot him'

 

But that is not what happened, it's worse than a partial truth - the headline is lying by omission. Boek swerved in front of the Uber driver, cutting him off, exited his car, advanced on the Uber driver, with a black object in his right hand, he raised his right hand leveled in the direction of the Uber driver and shouted "You know I got a pistol? You want me to F**ing shoot you ?"

 

Then the Uber driver shot him.

 

This why CNN is criticized for being a propaganda organization instead of a news agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...