JSO Shoots Unarmed Fleeing Man in the Back

[NotNow]

Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

[JaxNative68]

Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

Frogs are frogs and fish is fish.  Just like interpretations and opinions.

[uptowngirl]

Chris there are more death by automobiles than  guns, so why not?

[ChriswUfGator]

Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

Once again, NotNow doesn't bother to read the thread in which he's posting...Nice.

Your fellow officer springfielder posted that JSO's pursuit policy is not to engage in high speed chases unless there some kind of imminent threat of violence/homicide. To clear this up, I'll go ahead and send another PR request today for JSO's policy on high speed chases. You guys are burning up my postage meter on certified mail today...

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris there are more death by automobiles than  guns, so why not?

So are you saying that there are as many people on the roads with guns as there are with cars?

Otherwise that's a pretty nonsensical point, don't you think?

[ChriswUfGator]

Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

Frogs are frogs and fish is fish.  Just like interpretations and opinions.

Well thank you for finally acknowledging the point then...

[NotNow]

Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

Once again, NotNow doesn't bother to read the thread in which he's posting...Nice.

Your fellow officer springfielder posted that JSO's pursuit policy is not to engage in high speed chases unless there some kind of imminent threat of violence/homicide. To clear this up, I'll go ahead and send another PR request today for JSO's policy on high speed chases. You guys are burning up my postage meter on certified mail today...

Well, SOMEBODY is not reading!  What makes you think that Springfielder is a JSO Officer?  Where exactly did you get your ideas on JSO's pursuit policy?  Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Isn't that getting embarrassing?

[uptowngirl]

Chris there are more death by automobiles than  guns, so why not?

So are you saying that there are as many people on the roads with guns as there are with cars?

Otherwise that's a pretty nonsensical point, don't you think?

Not at all. There absolutely are more cars on the road than LEGAL guns. BUT, since you are more likley to die by car than gun perhaps owning and operating a car should be a little more controlled. Anyone with a small amount of cash and some ID can get a license. Heck in New Mexico the driving test is like a video game with pictures for those that cannot read. I just sat on a jury a couple months ago where not one other person on the jury knew the Florida statues regarding the lane markings on the road. All where smart people, and all drive, but not one of them knew the laws of Florida.  

[Springfielder]

To set things straight, I never said I was quoting JSO policy, in this or any other thread.

[ChriswUfGator]

Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

Once again, NotNow doesn't bother to read the thread in which he's posting...Nice.

Your fellow officer springfielder posted that JSO's pursuit policy is not to engage in high speed chases unless there some kind of imminent threat of violence/homicide. To clear this up, I'll go ahead and send another PR request today for JSO's policy on high speed chases. You guys are burning up my postage meter on certified mail today...

Well, SOMEBODY is not reading!  What makes you think that Springfielder is a JSO Officer?  Where exactly did you get your ideas on JSO's pursuit policy?  Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Isn't that getting embarrassing?

Ha! No wonder I was confused!

It never occurred to me that someone would be so asinine as to state JSO's pursuit policy, and then that same person would turn around and argue that the policy had never been stated! It was actually NotAgain who stated the relevant portion of the policy, not Springfielder, my mistake. Never dawned on me that someone would quote a JSO policy and then deny they'd said it. That really takes a special kind of genius...

So I now present you with NotAgain's own words;

JSO does not engage in vehicle pursuits over traffic violations.

pursuits are only allowed for violent felonies and some DUI's.  

Every pursuit is monitored by a Sergeant and a Watch Commander who can (and often do) call off the pursuit.  

Officers are charged with discontinuing the pursuit if the danger to the public exceeds the nature of the crime they are pursuing for.

No more than two marked units should normally be involved.  (There is a lot more to the subject, in fact, JSO's written directive is VERY long.  Too much for this format.)

I highlighted the relevant part above for you. So you still going to argue that we never had the policy?

LMFAO, you really outdid yourself this time NotAgain...

[ChriswUfGator]

To set things straight, I never said I was quoting JSO policy, in this or any other thread.

You are correct, it turned out it was actually the very same genius who was arguing with me that the policy had never been stated who had himself stated the policy. NotNow seriously outdid himself this time! LMFAO!

[ChriswUfGator]

Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?

I was quoting YOU, genius...

[NotNow]

Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?

I was quoting YOU, genius...

First, calm down.  You are getting all lathered up over a conversation.

Second, perhaps you should reread what I posted.  I never said a "homicide" or "danger of homicide" was required. 

Third, are you an adult?  I was under the impression that you were a law school grad.  Are you over 21?

[ChriswUfGator]

Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?

I was quoting YOU, genius...

First, calm down.  You are getting all lathered up over a conversation.

Second, perhaps you should reread what I posted.  I never said a "homicide" or "danger of homicide" was required. 

Third, are you an adult?  I was under the impression that you were a law school grad.  Are you over 21?

First off, I'm not upset, so there's hardly a need to calm down...

Yes, I am 30, and yes I am a law school graduate, not some infant in a crib, but thanks for the vote of confidence! I admit I was having a bit of fun at your expense, but you can hardly blame me, I mean it turned out that you were chastising me for mentioning a policy that you said had never been stated, when you were actually the one who had originally posted it. Come on, that's priceless.

And FWIW, my original point is that JSO has a duty not to create a greater danger to public safety than whatever crime they are trying to prevent. The policy you stated, which I was quoting, clearly bears this out. My comments regarding the policy restricting high speed chases to situations involving violence or homicide seem pretty clear cut, when the JSO policy according to your own statements narrows such pursuits to situations involving violent felonies or severe impairment.

Clearly the common theme there is the imminent risk of death to others, and for the record, wouldn't the word for someone killing another person happen to be "homicide"?

[NotNow]

Um, no, it wouldn't.  Get the policy and read it.  It clearly spells out the reasons for pursuit.  It is NOT limited to homicide or danger of homicide.  I am chastising you for failure to comprehend.  Reeling off a statement and attributing it to me is not debate, especially when my statements are clearly posted.  So, come on, try to keep the discussion on an adult level.