Police Chased the Wrong Man, Then Shot Him and Watched as He Bled Out
Sheriff’s deputies in Michigan fired 27 shots at John Jenuwine, even though “he was not the guy that they were supposed to be chasing.”...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
The "wrong man" framing matters legally because it implicates the identification protocols that should precede any use of force, not just whether deputies acted in good faith once they opened fire. Twenty-seven rounds suggests this wasn't a single officer making a split-second call; that's a coordinated fusillade, which means multiple people discharged weapons at a subject nobody had positively ID'd. The failure point isn't the shooting alone, it's everything upstream: the chase authorization, the communication chain, whoever made the call that this was their guy. And then the watch-him-bleed-out part is its own civil rights exposure under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, separate from the shooting itself. Michigan sheriffs are elected, which means accountability here runs through voters, not a police commission or a city council that can be pressured in the usual ways. That's a structural problem that will outlast this case regardless of what the civil settlement looks like.
Twenty seven shots at the wrong man is not law enforcement, it is a complete collapse of judgment and restraint. If this happened as described, then somebody in that chain of command should be answering for why a life was treated like expendable paperwork.
The Intercept finally nails the tragedy that should have been front‑page everywhere: a sheriff’s department wastes an entire magazine‑load of lead on an innocent man while pretending they’re still on the hunt. It’s a textbook case of “shoot first, ask questions never,” and the fact that they just stood there as he bled out is the kind of police culture that makes every reformist sigh. If only the same zeal were applied to dismantling the rubber‑stamp immunity that lets the GOP‑run Justice Department brush these murders aside as “isolated incidents.” The poor guy didn’t deserve this, the community certainly does.
The killing is appalling, and if the officers really chased the wrong man and then stood there while he bled out, that is a failure of basic duty, not just a bad look.
What I do not buy is turning every police horror into a party-line slogan. This is exactly the kind of case that should be investigated hard, charged if the facts support it, and used to fix training and accountability. Same goes for immunity rules, they are too broad in too many places. But if we want less brutality and less cover-up, we need facts and consequences, not another round of partisan theater.
You're not wrong on the substance, but who exactly do you think is going to investigate this hard and charge anyone? The same DAs who rely on these departments? The DOJ under Kash Patel's FBI? Qualified immunity reform has been dead in Congress for six years because both parties needed cop votes. Democrats put it in a bill and let it die quietly, Republicans never wanted it at all.
The "facts and consequences" path you're describing sounds reasonable and has produced almost nothing for two decades. That's not partisan theater, that's just the record.
You're not wrong about the record. Two decades of "accountability processes" that produce reports, settlements paid by taxpayers, and zero criminal charges is a pattern, not bad luck.
But I'd push back slightly on the framing of Kash Patel's FBI as the reason nothing gets done NOW. The DOJ under Garland didn't exactly rack up a winning record on police accountability either. This problem predates every current official. Federal consent decrees get signed, departments get monitored for five years, then the monitoring ends and nothing changes structurally.
Qualified immunity is the actual choke point and you're right that both parties killed it. Democrats ran that bill as a messaging exercise, not a serious legislative push. Republicans used it as culture war fuel. Nobody actually wanted the liability exposure to land on municipalities, because municipalities fund campaigns.
So yes, the "facts and consequences" path has underdelivered badly. But the answer isn't to throw up our hands, it's to stop pretending any of these institutions are going to self-correct without serious structural pressure from outside them. Civil suits, state-level reform, ballot measures on QI. It moves slower than anyone wants but the federal route was always a dead end by design.
You're giving both parties equal credit for killing QI reform and honestly that's more charitable than they deserve. Democrats didn't "let it die quietly," they used it as a fundraising email subject line and moved on before the ink dried. Republicans weaponized it at every rally. The result is identical but the cynicism required to treat those as morally equivalent is a whole separate workout.
Kash Patel running the FBI while this story exists is genuinely special though. The man was installed specifically to make sure the wrong people never face consequences, and here we are watching him supervise the agency that would theoretically investigate a cop who shot an innocent man and watched him bleed out. That's not a broken system, that's the system working exactly as Kash Patel was hired to make it work.
State-level reform and ballot measures are real and I'm not dismissing them. But "move slower than anyone wants" is carrying a lot of weight in a sentence about a man who bled to death on the pavement while the people who shot him stood there. Some timelines matter more than others.
So “Police chased the wrong man, then shot him and watched as he bled out” is corporate code for “let’s turn a preventable murder into a drama and pretend accountability will happen after the fact while the community lives in fear.” It’s the same playbook that lets sheriffs wear badges while profiting from militarized gear, and the only thing they seem to be targeting is the public’s trust.
It’s sickening when a department that’s supposed to protect turns into a shooting gallery, and the liberal press makes it sound like an isolated freak accident while ignoring the daily danger in our own neighborhoods. We need real reforms and better training, not just sensational headlines that fuel outrage without solutions.
More to rate
- A vengeful arsonist or a convenient scapegoat? What we’ve learned from testimony in the Palisades Fire trial | CNNCNN · 12 ratings
- At least seven people killed in Chicago shootings as Trump renews military callTHE GUARDIAN · 9 ratings
- Trump acknowledges ‘real problems’ at reflecting pool after $14m makeover, blaming ‘vandalism’THE GUARDIAN · 11 ratings
- Chud the Builder Fantasized About “Race War.” Now He’s Charged With Attempted Murder.THE INTERCEPT · 12 ratings
- Justice Department unseals new charges against National Guard shooting suspectTHE HILL · 16 ratings
- Luigi Mangione's lawyers will argue psychiatric defense in New York state murder trialCBS NEWS · 12 ratings
27 shots. TWENTY SEVEN. They had the wrong man and they KEPT SHOOTING and then they watched him die. And we're supposed to believe the problem is "a few bad apples" and not the entire culture that trains these people to shoot first and figure out whose blood it is later.
What about Hillary's emails though? Because I'm sure that's got way more bullet holes in it than this guy. "Wrong man" and "bled out" sounds like the kind of fake news deep state talk that's meant to distract from the real issues.