Fruita cops shoot man dead

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

I am generally sympathetic to law enforcement because so many of the people they deal with are the dregs of society. Having said that, I have never seen a story quite like this one. It has all the appearances of shoddy enabling “journalism” designed to give the law enforcement establishment time to make up a story they think will fly with the public, and decide what spin to put on it.
We don’t get to know the name of the man who was killed or any of the cops involved in the shooting. Why not?
Did the man have a gun, yes or no? It’s a simple question, quite easy to answer truthfully, unless you’re trying to find out what the witnesses saw so you can decide whether or not to plant a false “throw down” weapon.
Something is wrong if three professionally trained police officers can’t handcuff one man, put him in a patrol car, and take him to jail relatively uneventfully.
Since there were three gun-carrying cops and the alleged “perp” was running away, if the man was not armed, it’s not a very persuasive argument to pretend that the police were afraid for their lives.
Then there is the issue that we don’t get to know why the man was stopped, and what, if anything, he was wanted for.
In my opinion, the Sentinel reporter should have taken the police spokespersons to task for not providing the crucial facts of the story. At least that way the Sentinel could say they asked, but the police refused to answer. The way the story was written makes it look like the Sentinel is helping the cops cover up for shooting an unarmed and unwanted man who did nothing more than run from the police during a traffic stop.
There is the question, of course, why the guy ran in this age of the full-blown American “national security” police state. Surely most people know that’s a very dangerous thing to do. Was he wanted? Was he drunk or high on drugs?
Let’s not be naive here: if the police and their symbiotic buddies in the press had any facts with which to demonize the alleged perp and convict him in the media prior to trial, it would have found its way into the story. No such facts appeared, so it is logical to presume it is likely that no such facts exist.
All things being as they are, it looks like what we may have is most likely an unconstitutionally excessive use of force. It will be fascinating to watch the story unfold.

As I was saying, something is definitely “rotten in Denmark”. Compare the conflicting facts between the Sentinel’s original version of the story written by Charles Ashby, and KJCT’s updated version of the story at
In one version of the story the “perp” is running away (implicitly on foot) and the officers shot him, not knowing whether or not he was armed. In the second version of the story, the “perp” is a sovereign-citizen type who drove to a trailer with the cops not in pursuit, and then after the cops found him, he came out of a trailer, made statements “consistent to the ideology of those associated with the Sovereign Citizen movement who do not recognize established government entities,” and pointed a gun at the officers who then fired multiple times and killed him.
That is all too cutesy by half. Why not say what the alleged statements specifically were, instead of just strategically tangentially demonizing arguably all pro-constitution, limited-government movements? I am surprised the police spokespersons didn’t choose to demonize the Teaparty movement instead of the Sovereign Citizen movement. Maybe because the Teaparty movement is too popular.
It is self-evident that there is NO WAY the two conflicting sets of facts in the two conflicting versions of the story can both be true at the same time. Accordingly, I call “B.S.!” It definitely looks like somebody is lying about something. Question is, 1) who, 2) about what, and 3) why?
At least we get to know that it now looks as if the alleged “perp” was Lewis Pollard, age 61, of Fruita, and the three police officers were Sgt Kevin Paquette, Officer Andrew Courtney, and Officer Steve Lentz.
The main question I have is: exactly how did the establishment media come up with two such conflicting versions of the story? In my opinion, a truthful answer — as in “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” — to that question would definitely be in the public’s best interests.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy