JSO Shoots Unarmed Fleeing Man in the Back

[ChriswUfGator]

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-12-21/story/family-disputes-jacksonville-police-shooting

This article says that the metallic object turned out to be scales used to weigh drugs.  And he's been arrested before on cocaine trafficking charges.  

You honestly think this guy wasn't a drug dealer?

Well ok you got me there I hadn't seen that article yet. So he was indeed a drug dealer.

But it's worth noting that the article you linked to directly contradicts your point. It turns out the scale was the 'metallic object' the officer saw, so I'm following the story up to that point and JSO's actions up to then certainly seem reasonable. But it totally goes off the rails when you keep reading, and the article in repeating what JSO told the paper says that he had already thrown the scale out on the ground and was running away, and then JSO shot him in the back. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. He'd already ditched the scale the officer claimed was a gun and was running away. What possible justification for the use of deadly force does that scenario present?

[ChriswUfGator]

To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running away.

Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

[ChriswUfGator]

Touche Chris.

I assumed if you are out at 2AM driving around with your lights off, fleeing in an automobile that is now considered a deadly weapon, crashing into stuff and fleeing on foot from police, found with drugs on you..... you are most likely a dealer. I am doubtful he was getting ready for church early, but I could most certainly be guilty of bad assumptions and should hold judgement until I know more. BUT, even if he was on his way to church (with drugs in his pocket), he became a risk to the public as soon as he ran from the police. I gave a very specific example of a young boy killed under very similar circumstances here in our neighborhood. A good boy, a good son, a good student, and loved dearly by his parents. Dead  because of one idiot running from the cops.  If this man had hit anyone while fleeing we would most likley not be having this debate, luckily it was 2AM and not 2PM.

(BTW I totally agreed that the incident in the Burger King Drive through was outrageous, I think this is a different situation that's all).

My apologies, you were right. Someone posted a new link, he was indeed a drug dealer.

[north miami]

To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running awa



Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

Yes.
Suspect drove vehicle to a stop-JSO vehicle right behind him.
Suspect exited vehicle and proceeded away-note- a gun in hand was evident.

[ChriswUfGator]

To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running awa



Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

Yes.
Suspect drove vehicle to a stop-JSO vehicle right behind him.
Suspect exited vehicle and proceeded away-note- a gun in hand was evident.

So that guy at Lamb's was armed with a gun? Doesn't that kind of change things then?

If this guy had actually been armed then I don't think anyone would have a problem with the shooting. The whole problem is that they shot an unarmed man who was running away in the back. You have to have justification for the use of deadly force, and it just doesn't seem like this situation warranted that. And speaking generally, JSO seems to be misinterpreting the standard for justification as whether the officer feels threatened, not objectively whether there was actually any threat. There have been dozens of recent incidents that highlighted this ongoing perversion of the standard for use of deadly force, and I admit I have an issue with how that seems to be being handled.

[Springfielder]

I'm not weighing in one way or the other, however, the story did say that the officer saw what he presumed as something metallic in the guys waistband and that he shot when that person appeared to be reaching for it. That was his justification for using deadly force. Obviously, later, when he and the area was searched, there was no gun, but that does not alter what the officer presumed at the time he made the decision to discharge his weapon.

When situations such as this stem from multiple violations of the law and civil order, and when someone believes they see a weapon, that is often enough justification for the use of deadly force.

[Live_Oak]

To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running awa



Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

Yes.
Suspect drove vehicle to a stop-JSO vehicle right behind him.
Suspect exited vehicle and proceeded away-note- a gun in hand was evident.

So that guy at Lamb's was armed with a gun? Doesn't that kind of change things then?

If this guy had actually been armed then I don't think anyone would have a problem with the shooting. The whole problem is that they shot an unarmed man who was running away in the back. You have to have justification for the use of deadly force, and it just doesn't seem like this situation warranted that. And speaking generally, JSO seems to be misinterpreting the standard for justification as whether the officer feels threatened, not objectively whether there was actually any threat. There have been dozens of recent incidents that highlighted this ongoing perversion of the standard for use of deadly force, and I admit I have an issue with how that seems to be being handled.

Dozens?  This is the 7th police involved shooting in 2010.  Down from 15 in 2009 and 28 in 2008.

[ChriswUfGator]

So by your own count 50 police shootings in the past 3 years and you're objecting to the use of the word 'dozens'?

[Live_Oak]

The past 3 years is recent?

[ChriswUfGator]

And you didn't mention 2007, when we had more police shootings than Tampa, Orlando, and Miami...COMBINED;

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/040608/met_265507044.shtml

[ChriswUfGator]

The past 3 years is recent?

I certainly think looking at what occurred in the past 36 months qualifies as recent.

What's your definition of 'recent'? The past hour and a half? Only include shootings that happen on Tuesdays? Lol

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm not weighing in one way or the other, however, the story did say that the officer saw what he presumed as something metallic in the guys waistband and that he shot when that person appeared to be reaching for it. That was his justification for using deadly force. Obviously, later, when he and the area was searched, there was no gun, but that does not alter what the officer presumed at the time he made the decision to discharge his weapon.

When situations such as this stem from multiple violations of the law and civil order, and when someone believes they see a weapon, that is often enough justification for the use of deadly force.

Thank you for the explanation, I honestly appreciate it. I have a general understanding of it, but am not well versed in this, I appreciate your taking the time to explain the standard. So it sounds like the officer did have justification initially, I guess my only question would be whether justification is something that can be extinguished if the weapon / presumed weapon is discarded? Or is it one of those things where once you have it you have it?

[duvaldude08]

A. He only got shot once

B. What were they supposed to do? They dude started a chase, backed into the cops car and took off running. He could have been DANGEROUS. Were they supposed to just let him go? What if he was armed and broke into someones house and took them hostage? They had no choice but to fire. In this situation that was truly a last resort. He was asked to stop and didn't point blank!

C. This guy is a f@#king idiot. He had no weapons or drugs on him, but he yet he was fleeing. Maybe he had a warrant? But come on even if he did, he just made the situation worse. IMO, its the guys fault for being such a jack ass.

[ChriswUfGator]

A. He only got shot once

B. What were they supposed to do? They dude started a chase, backed into the cops car and took off running. He could have been DANGEROUS. Were they supposed to just let him go? What if he was armed and broke into someones house and took them hostage? They had no choice but to fire. In this situation that was truly a last resort. He was asked to stop and didn't point blank!

C. This guy is a f@#king idiot. He had no weapons or drugs on him, but he yet he was fleeing. Maybe he had a warrant? But come on even if he did, he just made the situation worse. IMO, its the guys fault for being such a jack ass.

Your points A and B highlight the problem.

They shot at him 8 times, 7 live rounds missed. This occurred in a residential neighborhood. What's more dangerous, an unarmed man running away, or firing 7 live rounds into a residential neighborhood?

[Shwaz]

A good friend of mine is a detective and we talk about these stories all the time. He has told me about the almost constant training for shoot / don't shoot situations. They're shown videos on a regular basis of footage caught on police dash cams where an officer hesitated and paid the price of his life.

It seems ingrained in each officer to fire in situations just like these. As my buddy says it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.