Jeffrey Weinhaus was shot multiple times by Henry Folsom on September 11, 2012. Weinhaus was helivaced from the scene and later recovered. The incident was “investigated” by employees of the Missouri State Highway Patrol Troop C. Information has come to light that proves that Folsom has lied about key fact.
See this post for all related content: http://CopBlock.org/JeffreyWeinhaus
It was just pointed-out to me that this wasn’t the first time Folsom shot someone.
A dozen years prior he shot a man. Read the write-up below so you know I’m not misquoting what’s claimed to have happened*.
If you click this text you’ll be brought to the same document pictured below, from the History of the Missouri State Highway Patrol 2000-2009 (pg8 is pictured).
Looking a bit closer, one can more-easily read that Henry Folsom, the man who shot Jeffrey Weinhaus multiple times last September, had, a dozen years prior, shot a man.
Might Folsom have less hesitation to shoot someone as he’d already done it before? I don’t know. I’ve never been in that situation and even if I were, only Folsom himself could know the impact.
What I do know is that in the span since Folsom shot this man in Maries County (are there any more?) he’s been in an environment that says he and his colleagues are all that stand between order and chaos, so it’s ok for them to bend the rules and to default to initiate force as there’s no disincentive to do otherwise.
It’s a perspective couched in fear and a divisive, us-vs-them lens. It means that each individual is viewed suspiciously. And that those most dangerous are those who question the legitimacy of the coercion-based institution and actors. Is that what Folsom felt about Weinhaus?
- Robert E. Parks (the prosecutor) 636.538-6370
- MSHP Troop I (where Henry Folsom, the shooter, works) 573.368-2345
- MSHP Troop C (where the “investigators” work) 636.300-2800
*All I’ll say is that the introduction of a police employee – someone who claims to be immune from responsibility thanks to their outfit – to an already-volatile environment is often a bad idea. Especially as its paradoxically claimed that your money can be taken under the guise of protection yet there’s no duty to protect you.