Home / Badge Abuse / Video: Police Kill Man In Front of His Family Within 2 Seconds of Opening His Door

Video: Police Kill Man In Front of His Family Within 2 Seconds of Opening His Door

Strongsville, OH — Roy Evans Jr. was assassinated in his vehicle in Strongsville, Ohio, in front of his girlfriend and his children. The family was returning home from a carpeting job they were working, when police attempted to pull over Evans’ van for a minor traffic violation.

Evans shouldn’t have done it, but according to his girlfriend, Amanda Pauley, he was afraid of going back to jail and didn’t stop for police. Police say he sped away at a high rate of speed, but it’s unclear how fast his 15 passenger van could possibly have been going. Nevertheless, the police deployed spike strips, disabled the vehicle, and trapped the van, keeping it from advancing.

That’s when the police, in effect operating as would-be assassins, exited their own vehicles, guns drawn, and yelling commands. Evans can be seen trying to slowly back up his vehicle to presumably pull around the officers’ cruisers, and potentially get away. That’s when the police ended Evans’ life. Two shots were fired center mass into his chest, probably killing him instantly. The rest of the family, fortunately , were uninjured.

Police dragged Evans’ lifeless body to the ground, laid him face down, and then handcuffed his lifeless body. He wasn’t armed. No weapon was found in the vehicle. And according to reports, he was only reaching to light up a cigarette when police opened fire.

The children, who were shell-shocked from seeing the hit men kill their dad, began to wail, scream, and cry aloud. It’s unclear which officer fired the fatal bullets, but one officer attempted to steer the children’s attention away from their murdered father’s body. He told the kids, “Don’t look at it,” as if the human being whose life was just struck down was some sort of lifeless carcass and not a human life.

READ MORE:  Wife of Murdered Cop Wakes Up to Prison System, Drug War and How it Led to her Husband's Death

Evans’ son screamed in disbelief, questioning the officer’s actions, “That’s my dad, dog…That’s my dad!…What the fuck is wrong with you?…Why the fuck would you shoot him like that?”

According to PINAC:

Jill Del Greco, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman confirmed no weapons were found on Evans, but hinted officers will use the defense that Evans might have used his van as a weapon in order to clear the officers for hastily shooting an unarmed man in front of his entire family. ‘We are still investigating to determine whether or not the van itself was used as a weapon,’ she said. Strongsville police declined to comment and have yet to identify the officer who fired the fatal shots.

Those details will eventually emerge, along with any body camera footage taken by the officers. There will be an investigation, internally of course, which will likely conclude the officer’s had a reasonable belief Mr. Evans was attempting to flee, potentially using his vehicle as a weapon, and injuring officers who will undoubtedly claim they were “in fear for their lives” and none of the officers will see any jail time for shooting an unarmed man, father, worker, and boyfriend in front of his family. Something is seriously wrong with our culture when officers can act with reckless abandon and experience no legal ramifications.

As Matt Agorist of The Free Thought Project explained in our first article covering this story:

This case comes on the heels of officer Derrick Stafford’s trial starting this week for a hauntingly similar stop that was also caught on video. Stafford and another officer, Norris Greenhouse Jr. opened fire on an unarmed father, Christopher Few. However, in that case, the father lived and the 6-year-old boy inside the vehicle, Jeremy Mardis did not.
Police officers fearing for their lives over unarmed people in vehicles is an all too common and tragic reality. Sadly, these children will now all grow up with the memory of their daddy being blown away in front of them by a person, who they are told, ‘protects society.’

Many, if not most, police departments are moving away from active pursuits to a “restrictive pursuit policy“. Knowing that most suspects flee from police without being guilty of committing any felonies, it’s much cheaper and safer for police not to give chase. Lengthy and expensive court cases cost the taxpayer millions of dollars in settlement fees. Police cruisers are also expensive. There may be very little doubt, had Strongsville Police not given chase, not only would their vehicles not have been damaged, but Mr. Evans would still be laying carpet with his family. Something’s got to give.

READ MORE:  The Truth about Police Violence Against Minorities, What #BlackLivesMatter isn't Talking About

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      “Americans can protect themselves.” You mean, like George Zimmerman? The thing about cops is that they don’t grow them on some farm in Nebraska – they’re also “Americans” and they come from the same communities and schools and families as any other occupation.

      • IceTrey

        Yes but they are the assholes of those communities, schools and families.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          And what do you think they’d be/do if America became an “every man for himself” kind of place? They’d do EXACTLY the same thing they’re doing now – blowing people away and swearing it was “self-defense.”

          • IceTrey

            I don’t get your point.

          • Guy

            It’s quite simple really. Any person who has the means of power and influence over others, by controlling their thoughts and actions as the result, will not risk losing that ability, by what ever means necessary to continue to do so. So by that, the Man or Woman with the Gun and Backing to use it, (whether legal or not) rules over thouse that don’t ! It breaks down to; The Federal Government And Its State Minions, have the means to control the masses.

      • Bill the eighth

        Usually chosen from the dregs of society, limited to an IQ of 100 or less.

      • Zackknowitall

        So you are saying they are human. So why cut them a break when the lie, steal or break laws?

      • Zackknowitall

        Ask yourself this who would they hire between these two people one that openly said “I won’t write a ticket or make an arrest for a victimless crime” or “I’ll enforce all laws.”

        See I couldn’t be a cop bc I couldn’t arrest a cancer patient on vacation in my state bc her medicine of marijuana is illegal here. I know or incidents where a cancer patient with medical marijuana tracked to TX from CA to watch he daughter graduate from college. He was arrested and spent the weekend in jail. How can a person be arrested and thrown in a cage for having a medical life saving plant? Answer is dont hire cops with morals.

  • Abz B Zbas

    Putting his family in harm’s way (aka police) is a selfish thing for this man to do.

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      Be that as it may, since when have we become so chickenshit complacent that a police presence is acknowledged as “in harm’s way” in LITERALLY the same breath used to blame another dead victim of theirs?

      • Abz B Zbas

        Not meant to victim blame. Perhaps I didn’t explain myself clearly. If I were a parent I would do anything to protect my family, including going to prison if it meant keeping them safe.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          Not many people expect they’ll be summarily executed just for trying to run.

          • David Hall

            That’s it, it breaks down to no cop has a right to execute an unarmed person with family in vehicle no less. A badge does not give cops extra rights! Although they think it does and all the lousy cop shops will clear them for murder in a New York minute.



            Punta Gorda , this is the worst gang of liars and criminals I have ever seen…this is worth the watch!

          • G’ma G

            Unfortunately our high courts have in fact given law enforcement extra rights. This is the big fight we are in–government officers setting themselves apart and above the rest of the people.

  • G’ma G

    The system is not going to fix itself until there are major riots everywhere that the thugs simply cannot cope with. Until we show our strength in numbers the tyrants will continue to reign over us.

    • Raimundo Gant

      Thats basically how the American Revolution started except now theres no where to go and the government is far far more powerful than the citizens of the U.S.. Rioting would be a great excuse for cleansing the disobedient.

      • Zackknowitall

        They are not more power. If just 1,000 people started a guerrilla war against them randomly popping cops and running away they would have to stop enfoceinf victimless laws and enforcing the will of the government on us. On the first night it would be 1 out of every 1,000 cops getting done dirty.

        Rioting will never work bc the ppl only tear up private bussness but never cause the government much hardship.

        Cops always make claims of the mythical war on cops that don’t exist. Hell a group of 100 out randomly popping and leaving no trace would cause them to strighten up their act.

        Could you imagine a group of vigilante cop hunters reading the news and selecting bad cops to be targeted. Like cops that falsely detain cameramen, arrest people for victimless crimes, commit perjury, plant evidence, extort people to asset forfeiture of your other means and or the good cops that protect the bad cops. Cops like Jason Van Dyke who is out on bond for murdering Jaquan mcdoland. If there was a war on cops he would be dead along with ever cop that took part in the cover up.

    • Ed

      I believe it has to be a surprise! They say millions of Americans own Smartphones & Guns!
      there will be an app!

      • G’ma G

        Please know I do not advocate violence. I am a realist and my field of study was psychology. Riots are what we resort to as a group. Not necessarily the right or wrong thing to do–just what we do, do.

    • Zackknowitall

      Wtf are they talking about? This guy was dead wrong. He was driving on a suspended lic then lead the cops on a high speed chase. One they forced him to stop he makes sudden moves picking up stuff from the floor.

      The only person to blame is himself.

      I’m the biggest cop hater in the world but they were not wrong here.

      • G’ma G

        Yes they were. Traffic infractions and running away do not carry a death sentence. Fidgeting because you are nervous does not carry a death sentence. Executing a man in front of his family for this man’s behaviors does carry a death sentence.

        • Zackknowitall

          I dare you to answer these question.

          1. Do you think he died over a traffic infraction?

          2. Did you see him run from the polic?

          3. Did you see him ram other cars with his van?

          4. Did you see him fail to put his hands up?

          5. Did you see him reach under his seat?

          6. Do you know if he didn’t run, ram cars, reach under his seat and put his hands up he would be alive today?

          He died because he did or failed to do seraval things.

          I don’t play devils advocate when he comes to cops. I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. This guy was wrong for 1. Shouldn’t have been driving, 2. Should have pulled over right away, 3. Shouldn’t have run, 4. Shouldn’t have ramed police cars, 5. Shouldn’t have opened door after chase was over, 6. Should have kept his hands raised above his head and not moved at all.

          This guy is dead bc of his actions and his actions alone.

          • G’ma G

            1. Yes, although driving on suspended is a misdemeanor in most states.
            2. No I saw him evading because he was nervous and made a “foolish” decision.
            3. No, just a bump to the police car that pulled in front of him.
            4. No, frankly the police are blocking the view of the driver.
            5. See 4
            6. No. There are many examples of people following the polices’ orders that were maimed or killed.
            Please do the courtesy of answering two questions for me. Which of his actions are prohibited by law and which of those carry a death sentence after conviction?

          • Zackknowitall

            It don’t matter if others were killed following orders. Those cases have nothing to do with this one.

            To answer you question:
            So we are aggrence that he did in fact run from the cops, bump a police car then failed to show his hand. To answer you question after all them events the failure of the guy to show his hands is what got him killed.

            Like I said before I don’t give the cops the benefit of a doubt ever. There is no doubt here the cops were right.

      • TOPDOG1

        They were and so are you.

  • AnnaBella Thompson

    Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41

  • Guy

    I just don’t get it, and need some help from you folks to explain it to me in basic terms ! Drugs in one form or the other have pretty much always been here since about Adam. In early times, we ate certain leaves and bark off of trees, to relieve headaches and stomach problems. Later graduating on to more refined types and usage, for a myriad of our aches and pains that afflicted us, and only much later an more recently, has the psychrotrophic types been in use, like LSD, PCP, and some of the others. Most of these were developed for medical use, with a few by the Military Scientist for soldiers useage.

    Up To the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, Opioids and others could be bought in the local pharmacies, as well imported from other Countries for people to use, with none or very little restricted usage put on us by The Government, or anybody else.

    So when did all this BS start, and who started it ? I know that both Johnson and Nixon, had a lot to do with the formation of some of the laws, but befor that there was fairly unrestricted usage, with very little Government oversight, and none of the *Drug War’s and Asset Forfeiture Laws that we live with now, and used as a glub by the police to beat us over the head with !

    It seem’s that some countries like Sweden and Turkey, are a hell of a lot more enlightened that us, with none of the restrictions for drug use, and very little problems to show as the results. So when did we as a Country, get so damn stupid !?

    • Raimundo Gant

      Its not stupidity. Its about control and ethnic cleansing

    • Ed

      The drug war is not only about cannabis, but cannabis is the drug war!

      • Zackknowitall

        Only reason for a war on cannabis is the government is losing out on taxes. The only reason to vote against legalizing it is to get rich.

    • B_man
    • G’ma G

      The 3 human vices that have been and always will be a part of humanity is drugs, sex and gambling. Governments regulate and fascist governments regulate everything that will result in revenue. Revenue from criminalizing these vices is guaranteed.

    • Zackknowitall

      It was the Jesus freaks that want to control everything that passed these laws and started the drug wars.

  • David Hall

    There was absolutely positively no danger to any fucking cop. The driver used no sense at all, but it did not deserve the death sentence for a lousy driving infraction.

    • Zackknowitall

      Are you kidding. 1. Didn’t stop
      2. Lead a chase
      3. Rammed cars
      4. Wouldn’t put hands up
      5. Reached under seat.

  • Samuel Lane

    “…cost the taxpayers millions in settlement.” And the police care about that why?

  • User Unknown

    One question that always occurs to me when I watch these videos: Are police officers too stupid to know that they don’t need sirens once they’ve come to a stop, and that it will interfere with the hearing and comprehension of everyone on-site — or is no one capable of inventing a device that automatically shuts off sirens when cars come to a stop?”

  • Ibcamn

    well….im guessing the cops just wanted to get their kill in for the day early and easily…cops are criminals people,wake up.