Audio Leaked from MO St. Patrol Employee Shooting of Jeffrey Weinhaus

Published On January 17, 2013 | By Pete Eyre | Articles, Videos

Earlier today I received from an anonymous source audio from the Sept. 11th, 2012 shooting of Jeffrey Weinhaus by two Missouri State Highway Patrol employees.

For all related information see the meta-post: CopBlock.org/JeffreyWeinhaus

Missouri State Highway Patrol Troop I (the outfit where the shooter(s) are employed): (573) 368-2345
Missouri State Highway Patrol Troop C (the outfit investigating the actions of their colleagues down the road): (636) 300-2800

If you’re in central Missouri:

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Pete Eyre is co-founder of CopBlock.org. As an advocate of peaceful, consensual interactions, Eyre seeks to inject a message of complete liberty and self-government into the conversation of police accountability. Eyre went to undergrad and grad school for law enforcement, then spent time in DC as an intern at the Cato Institute, a Koch Fellow at the Drug Policy Alliance, Directer of Campus Outreach at the Institute for Humane Studies, Crasher-in-Chief at Bureaucrash, and as a contractor for the Future of Freedom Foundation. He later hit the road as co-founder of the Motorhome Diaries and Liberty On Tour and now calls Keene, in the 'shire his homebase.
  • rick

    What do the police reports say about this incident?
    Attempted murder is generally frowned upon.

  • Burn The Obedient

    If that is true, unedited, audio of what happened during that encounter, there is alot of explaining to do.

  • Pingback: Audio Leaked from MO St. Patrol Employee Shooting of Jeffrey Weinhaus - Unofficial Network

  • JohnK

    Where is the dash cam footage???? If it does not exist or was erased something is going on here.

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Glenn

    How can you tell a cop is lying?

    His lips are moving.

  • HonorYourOath

    This is Premeditated Attempted Murder! If this can happen to Jeff it can happen to any of us! We can not let these thugs get away with this or all of us who seek government transparency and accountability are in jeopardy.
    Evey body please call and demand Justice.

  • D-tom

    Everyone should submit this audio to local TV…THEY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR this…cold blooded murder.

  • Dan Sayers

    I’m not familiar with Mr. Weinhaus, so I cannot comment on his thoughts or words. Instead, I’ll comment on the police’s interest in him from the start.

    IF Mr. Weinhaus had actually advocated the violent overthrow of the US government, he’s entitled to do so, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. IF Mr. Weinhaus had actually participated in the violent overthrow of the US government, he’s entitled to do so, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Consequently, both of these amendments fall under the Bill or Rights, classified as inalienable by any government.

    SO even IF he had engaged in either of those activities (big contingency), the police had no right to criminalize him for it. They unlawfully approached him which means anything they pretended to smell was inconsequential. Considering everything precipitated from that unlawfulness, it means that everything that followed should be considered unadmissible. In other words, no case.

    These thought police want you to believe it’s a crime to exercise the mind. That it’s a crime to resist crime, when the crime is coming from behind a badge. The irony is that in trying to forcibly silence him and/or punish him for his beliefs, they’ve only served to prove the necessity of what they claim he’s said.

    BTW, simply saying “I smell marijuana” doesn’t mean you are suddenly above the law or that the person you’re talking to is subservient to you. I would bet it all that the marijuana they supposedly found was planted.

  • Common Sense

    “Sorry your Honor, he went for his pistol and I went for mine, I was just faster….” Case closed, well not really, he’s still facing the original criminal charges but they won’t be pressed until he’s ‘fit’ enough for incarceration so the prison system won’t be burdened for his medical care while locked up.

    And the audio has apparently been around since Sept 2012.

    On a side note, if and when the AWB is renewed, I know someone who’s gonna loose their firearms.

  • Common Sense

    Though rarely used, there are still federal statutes (and many state ones) for treason, rebellion and sedition.

    Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
    the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
    thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
    Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
    sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
    matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
    desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
    government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
    Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof –
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
    twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
    If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
    this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

  • jayduba

    From Family Security Matters and The Declaration of Independence;’
    “… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

    In summary, if our government chooses to violate our unalienable rights; if our government chooses to pass unjust laws, contrary to the consent of the governed; if our government chooses to take despotic actions that reduce us to servitude of the government, or some political agenda – then we have a right and a duty according to the Declaration of Independence to “throw off such Government.” Because regardless whether it comes from one tyrant in London or 3,000 tyrants in Washington, D.C., tyranny – in all its forms – must be passionately fought until it is defeated.

  • mike

    Ways to help Jeff. Inmatedeposits.com.
    write him Franklin County Jail
    inmate #2012-4030.
    1 Bruns Drive, Union MO 63084.
    Appear in court April 30th thru May 2nd.

  • Ken W

    Makes me sick. I actually think he said, “You don’t have to shoot me, man.”

  • Jack

    I’m one of those crazy Patriots who read the Magna Carta of 1215. I’m sure that were probably a couple of Irish swords pointed at the Kings throaght when he was forced to sign this.

    Abuses by King John caused a revolt by nobles who compelled him to execute this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.

    It seems to be that this is a cognizable Felony for the powers to be, to ignore this is a Misprison of a Felony. For a prosecutor to purse a case like this, in my opinion constitutes malicous prosecution by the prosecutor and abuse of process.

    Supreme Court Rule 5.08 authorizes the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) to investigate any matter of professional misconduct.

    The OCDC has authority to investigate alleged misconduct with or without a complaint. Although investigations are initiated without the filing of a complaint, written complaints submitted to OCDC provide the primary source of information of alleged misconduct.

    I would imagine that you could state claim against the officers in the prosecutor in this case for: Deprivation of Rights Under The Color Of Law and Conspriracy Against Rights.

  • Dan Sayers

    Thanks, jayduba, for hitting the nail on the head. Particularly with the words “unjust laws” and “duty”. I cringe every time I hear somebody hold up a bad law as if being the law makes it correct.

    The justice system is set up to be methodical in an attempt to increase accuracy. However, at its core, every government is human and therefore inherently imperfect. This is precisely why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written in such a manner as to address this AND ensure it didn’t happen to us.

    Not long ago, New Hampshire admitted that it’s “biggest problem” was the Free State Project. This is the way it’s supposed to be: Our government is supposed to fear us because we have the power (and the numbers, never forget) to pull the plug at any time they abuse our trust.

    That’s exactly why when somebody stands up, they arch their backs, hair on their tails fluffing up to appear larger than they actually are. When they shoot one of us to scare the others, ten more are supposed to rise in his place to let them know this is not okay. If not today, then when?

  • Justice For Jeffrey Weinhaus

    “What I’ve been trying to lay down over the last 16 years is my right to go in there and blast you (expletive) out of there if we have to. You’re going down one way or another.”

    A censored comment by Jeffrey Weinhaus, 46, as seen in the September 12, 2012 online edition of the St-Louis Today news outlet.

    The article also goes on to say, ‘On Tuesday [September 11, of all days], two officers with the Missouri Highway Patrol’s drug and crime division arranged to meet Weinhaus at a gas station on Highway K near St. Clair.

    The station was near Weinhaus’ residence, police say.

    A news release issued Wednesday morning by Patrol Sgt. Al Nothum gave the following account of what happened on the parking lot:

    ‘The patrol troopers saw that Weinhaus wore a holster on his side with a pistol in it. The troopers ordered Weinhaus to move his hands away from the pistol, but Weinhaus instead ‘unstrapped the holster and began to draw the weapon,’ the patrol said.

    ‘Fearing for their safety, the troopers fired at and struck Weinhaus. After securing Weinhaus, the troopers provided medical assistance until the arrival of emergency medical services personnel.’

    Weinhaus was hit at least twice, police say.

    Weinhaus was flown to Mercy Hospital St. Louis in Creve Coeur in critical condition. On Wednesday morning, Nothum said Weinhaus remains hospitalized.’

    Soooo, the official report (lies) says that he drew his weapon (proof only in report, and troopers getting stories straight in time for the late edition), and in the usual ‘officer safety before citizen safety’, they reportedly opened fire when they said he ignored the ultimatum to ‘keep your hands up’. Humumgous indication of misconduct and lying after the fact.

    That report doesn’t jive at all, since there is no evidence of any aggression on the part of Weinhaus (dashcam video does not exist, conveniently) and POLICE LIE ALL THE TIME!

    On January 18, 2013, an audiotape account of the incident was leaked, but we don’t know yet if it is authentic, doctored or otherwise misleading.

    If it is authentic and is the truth, these trooper bastards will have some hell to pay.

    Here is the link to the St-Louis Today article, which won’t disappear anytime soon…

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-critic-is-shot-in-run-in-with-missouri-patrolmen/article_3d2c9539-b68e-5f2f-92e5-269823ee16f7.html

    Here is another snippet, poorly written at that, that describes what KSDK.com’s star reporter wrote on the day of the shooting… Grab a screenshot of this online article before it disappears. Link below.

    ‘St. Clair, MO (KSDK) – The Missouri State Highway Patrol is investigating a shooting in Franklin County involving a patrolman.

    The shooting occurred after 2 p.m. in St. Clair when officer was serving a search warrant on a man. They had agreed to meet the man in a public area.

    When the man arrived, he exited his vehicle armed with a handgun. Officers ordered the man to put the gun down, and when he did not comply they fired several shots at him.

    The man, identified as Jeffrey Weinhaus, was transported to Mercy Hospital in Creve Coeur for treatment. His condition has not been released.

    No officers were injured in the incident.’

    Nowhere in this ridiculous article does it say that Weinhaus was aggressive, nor did he reportedly pull his gun from its holster.

    It does say that he exited his vehicle ‘armed with a handgun’.

    Holstered would still mean that he’s armed. I didn’t read anywhere that he had been ‘brandishing a weapon at police’. That’s strange. The ‘patrolmen’ opened fire anyways. That’s criminal.

    You’d think that these newspapers would print in boldface that he pulled his weapon (and fired) first, but they didn’t. But the ‘patrolmen’ still shot to kill.

    The fact that this wasn’t mentioned is an indicator that he was in fact armed, but not dangerous, threatening, brandishing a weapon nor was shooting him warranted. Just a thought.

    http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/337721/3/Jeffrey-Weinhaus-shot-by-Missouri-State-Highway-Patrol-officers

  • Justice_League

    Here’s a story:

    A guy gets on YouTube and publicly threatens officials with lethal force.

    A self proclaimed “Man of God” who uses fowl language.

    That same guy on an encounter with police decides to arm himself and during such is shot. But apparently the officers had no reason to feel reasonable fear from his actions.

    A website then posts “audio” that claims to prove otherwise. AUDIO that cannot show whether he reached for his gun or not, but does clearly indicate his resistance and refusal to comply with lawful orders.

    And the only contradiction you can show is a Police Report, that is summarized, paraphrased, and never written word for word no matter what state you are in.

    Don’t see you winning this case…

  • LCDMR321

    The audio proves nothing. If anything it damages bullets-in-man defense. He is a prime example of why there should be mental health checks prior to owning a firearm. Bullets-in-man is clearly guilty all of you activists on this site are just laughable in you so called knowledge of the law. This was not attempted murder by law enforcement, it was justified self defense. The only guilty party involved in this is bullets-in-man, trying to draw a weapon on a cop is such an idiotic thing to do, but then again bullets-in-man was never intelligent to begin with. I hope he gets the maximum sentence for these crimes and never sees the light of day again.

  • Pingback: Central Missouri Copblocker Jeffrey Weinhaus Shot by MO St. Patrol Employee(s), Airlifted | Cop Block

  • James

    Oh look, how odd you leave the part out where the ask him why he is has a gun and they tell him to take his hand off the gun and then he refuses…go figure. He intentionally made a confrontation. He could have easly kept his hands off the gun. But no, he wanted to be a martyr. He is a cazy nut job.

  • Valarie Weinhaus

    He did NOT say “You’re gonna have to shoot me, man”. He said “YOU DON’T have do shoot me, man.” Listen really closely.

  • Anti-liberal

    They never tell him to “take his hand off the gun” They tell him to “get on the ground” the audio is bad but your claim of their statement has to many syllables to match the audio. The audio alone doesn’t prove anything. I am going to watch the watch camera video.