JSO Shoots Unarmed Fleeing Man in the Back

[NotNow]

I will point out, that I have not quoted the policy word for word.  It is my belief that to publicly publish such information is detrimental to the police mission for obvious reasons.  However, the policy is public record, and for any posters who have the interest the complete text of teh written directive can be obtained. 

I am simply pointing out the reason for my inexact language and that what I have posted here is NOT the official policy of the JSO.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

I'm not the one as between the two of us with any failure to comprehend anything, sorry bud but you're sunk by your own words (which I quoted for you on page 9 of this thread) on this one.

[ChriswUfGator]

I will point out, that I have not quoted the policy word for word.  It is my belief that to publicly publish such information is detrimental to the police mission for obvious reasons.  However, the policy is public record, and for any posters who have the interest the complete text of teh written directive can be obtained.  

I am simply pointing out the reason for my inexact language and that what I have posted here is NOT the official policy of the JSO.

Well any fault for using inexact language would necessarily be yours, wouldn't it? Since you were the one posting about the policy, no? I was simply quoted what you said. Lol, so slice and dice this one whichever way you want, you just keep looking worse and worse. Maybe you should just cut to the chase and post a nit-picking screed about everything that's wrong with your own post? LMAO

[NotNow]

Chris...this is tiresome.  Where did I state that JSO requires "danger of homicide" to pursue?  I did not.  I'm not trying to "look" like anything.  I do this for a living.  I have done this for more than two decades.  You? 

Your refusal to admit that you have no real experience says it all.  I have attempted to help, but you prefer to make fun of people and rant.  That says more about you than the others on this site.

Get back to me when you grow up in more than years of life.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris...this is tiresome.  Where did I state that JSO requires "danger of homicide" to pursue?  I did not.  I'm not trying to "look" like anything.  I do this for a living.  I have done this for more than two decades.  You?  

Your refusal to admit that you have no real experience says it all.  I have attempted to help, but you prefer to make fun of people and rant.  That says more about you than the others on this site.

Get back to me when you grow up in more than years of life.

All I did was quote YOU, genius...

So rather than acknowledge that this is right there in black and white, you attack the poster personally?

Like I said just cut to the chase and do one of your typical nonsensical screeds about how wrong your own post was, since that's the post I was referring to. Lol. For anyone with a brain and at least one working eye, I quoted your comments for you on page 9, so they're free to read what you wrote in black and white.

You clearly said chases were limited by policy to violent felonies and certain DUI situations, which plainly shows the common concern there is the risk of death to others. And since you actually just tried to deny that "homicide" means one person killing another, here's the definition for you;

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homicide

Princeton WordNet

Noun

S: (n) homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)

So keep digging your hole, this is just getting funnier and funnier. And I don't particularly care how tedious you find situations in which you effectively manage to prove yourself wrong, that's not really my problem is it? I'll admit it's certainly entertaining though.

[NotNow]

"You clearly said chases were limited by policy to violent felonies and certain DUI situations, which plainly shows the common concern there is the risk of death to others."

The 'which plainly shows' part is where you are required to think a little better.  If you really have a question, then consult the JSO directive.  It is pretty simple.  Try looking up 'forcible felonies' in the FSS.

I am not digging a hole, son.  I do this every day.  You are just typing in the dark.  Have an "entertaining" day.

[ChriswUfGator]

"You clearly said chases were limited by policy to violent felonies and certain DUI situations, which plainly shows the common concern there is the risk of death to others."

The 'which plainly shows' part is where you are required to think a little better.  If you really have a question, then consult the JSO directive.  It is pretty simple.  Try looking up 'forcible felonies' in the FSS.

You said what you said, genius...

JSO does not engage in vehicle pursuits over traffic violations.

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

Did someone hijack your keyboard and write that? Or this?

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

Must really suck for you when someone quotes you so your words can't 'disappear' like usual...

I am not digging a hole, son.  I do this every day.  You are just typing in the dark.  Have an "entertaining" day.

I'm not your son. And, yeah, you've dug a hole clean through to China. You look like an idiot, contradicting yourself from one post to the next. You wrote what you wrote, it's there in black and white for whoever wants to read it.

And thanks to you I've had a very entertaining day. Better luck next time.

[NotNow]

This is not a debate.  I know the policy and you have never seen it.  Picking out words and then making up your own rules based on YOUR interpretation is what you do, but it does not change the truth.  You guys made up some kind of homicide rule for pursuits.  I'm telling you that idea is wrong.  You made up a 'rule' that I never said OR inferred.  Now you can insist that you are "right" all you want, it won't change JSO's policy, which is what we are discussing.  If you want to debate the policy, get a copy and I will be happy to do that.  But since you have no knowledge of the JSO pursuit policy, this argument is moot...Son.

[ChriswUfGator]

This is not a debate.  I know the policy and you have never seen it.  Picking out words and then making up your own rules based on YOUR interpretation is what you do, but it does not change the truth.  You guys made up some kind of homicide rule for pursuits.  I'm telling you that idea is wrong.  You made up a 'rule' that I never said OR inferred.  Now you can insist that you are "right" all you want, it won't change JSO's policy, which is what we are discussing.  If you want to debate the policy, get a copy and I will be happy to do that.  But since you have no knowledge of the JSO pursuit policy, this argument is moot...Son.

You quoted the policy, genius...keep digging your hole.

And just because you're old enough to be my grandfather doesn't make me your son, gramps!

[NotNow]

Old enough to know better than to argue a policy that I had never seen.  Once again, you are arguing about something that you know nothing about.  I an not a genius, but I know better than that!  

Did you look up forcible felonies?  Is it limited to homicide?  

I am not here to "quote" policy.  I am attempting to assist those that have an open mind to see things from a JSO perspective.  If you want to argue policy, go visit the Sheriff.  

A little advise from an old guy, know the subject or get a subject matter expert...or just don't go into it.  If you ever do actually get into a courtroom this kind of crap will get your a$$ handed to you.

[ChriswUfGator]

Old enough to know better than to argue a policy that I had never seen.  Once again, you are arguing about something that you know nothing about.  I an not a genius, but I know better than that!  

Did you look up forcible felonies?  Is it limited to homicide?  

I am not here to "quote" policy.  I am attempting to assist those that have an open mind to see things from a JSO perspective.  If you want to argue policy, go visit the Sheriff.  

A little advise from an old guy, know the subject or get a subject matter expert...or just don't go into it.  If you ever do actually get into a courtroom this kind of crap will get your a$$ handed to you.

You're not handing anything to me except a pile of your typical B.S.

You keep acting like I'm referencing some policy I've never heard of, when YOU were the one posting about it, genius. Like I said, takes a special kind of idiot to post about a policy and then claim the policy they just posted is wrong. So which is it? Either way you're wrong, genius. Pick your poison. Need me to quote your own words again for you?

And I already posted the definition of "homicide" which naturally directly contradicted your argument. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Websters. I didn't write the dictionary, just pointed out that as usual you clearly haven't bothered to use it.

[NotNow]

Chris, you obviously just want to bitch about the Sheriff's Office.  I have tried to offer you insight, and experience, but you just want to pick a fight...about a subject that you know nothing about.  You don't need me to accomplish what you want to do.  And I don't need to be insulted or lectured by you.  You obviously don't wish to communicate, but rather to argue. 

So enjoy yourself.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, you obviously just want to bitch about the Sheriff's Office.  I have tried to offer you insight, and experience, but you just want to pick a fight...about a subject that you know nothing about.  You don't need me to accomplish what you want to do.  And I don't need to be insulted or lectured by you.  You obviously don't wish to communicate, but rather to argue. 

So enjoy yourself.

NotNow, you posted about the JSO pursuit policy, then spent two pages ranting about how that was wrong when you were the one who had posted about the policy. That's what you actually did, and it's just plain asinine. Then when I pointed out how effectively you'd managed to hoist yourself on your own petard on this one, you started attacking me personally and calling me "Son." Both of us are aware that isn't "offering insight," you're just trying to whitewash your failed argument and your personal attack as some benign attempt to be helpful.

My point in this thread was not to bitch about JSO, it was to voice opposition to police chases that create more danger than they are supposed to prevent. As it turns out, at least according to your post, JSO has already instituted a policy that high speed chases are not supposed to occur when the chase presents a greater danger to the public than the crime the chase is supposed to prevent, and that was really my point all along. So I'm happy to know they have that policy.

Honestly, I would've let you off the hook two pages ago if you hadn't done one of your typical heel-digging stunts and pulled a complete 180 and started denying that anyone had ever written about the policy, forcing me to go back and quote you for yourself since you were actually the one who'd written about it. You create these unnecessary arguments that backfire when you dig your heels in. What do you think you're accomplishing when you tell people something and then claim they don't know what you just told them? Sorry the debate got sidetracked with that foolishness, but what did you expect?

[NotNow]

Your interpretation and inferences from my posts were not honest and were made to serve your own purpose, which is just argumentative.  Again, since I am the only one of us with any training and experience in this area, and I am the only one of us who has actually read the JSO policy, there really is no basis for any of this discussion.  

Beyond this particular subject, your revulsion of law enforcement and JSO in particular seem quite clear to me.  I am aware that you protest this point, but a quick review of threads that you have initiated make it quite obvious.  Rather than bicker with someone whose mind is made up, and since you have made it clear that you have no respect for my opinion, I don't see any reason to converse with you.  I will continue to point out your inaccuracies and I am sure that you will continue to mock me and any others who disagree with your opinion.  But I will attempt to not converse with you for the above listed reasons.

[ChriswUfGator]

Your interpretation and inferences from my posts were not honest and were made to serve your own purpose, which is just argumentative.  Again, since I am the only one of us with any training and experience in this area, and I am the only one of us who has actually read the JSO policy, there really is no basis for any of this discussion.  

Beyond this particular subject, your revulsion of law enforcement and JSO in particular seem quite clear to me.  I am aware that you protest this point, but a quick review of threads that you have initiated make it quite obvious.  Rather than bicker with someone whose mind is made up, and since you have made it clear that you have no respect for my opinion, I don't see any reason to converse with you.  I will continue to point out your inaccuracies and I am sure that you will continue to mock me and any others who disagree with your opinion.  But I will attempt to not converse with you for the above listed reasons.

I "dishonestly" quoted what you wrote? How is that even possible? You wrote it.

Revulsion of law enforcement? Give me a break. Let's not get confused here; Just because I don't like an internet message board poster that happens to be a cop doesn't mean I dislike all cops. The common thread in these debates is generally you. You're really stretching the logic on that one. As far as mocking people, do you happen to be standing in front of a mirror when you write these screeds?

You're the one who jumped in here (like always) and started claiming everybody is unqualified to disagree with your opinion, notwithstanding the fact that you'd just completely contradicted yourself, and then started calling me "son." You took it there, not me. Am I supposed to feel bad now? You're a crybaby when it comes to this, you insult people constantly and the minute someone gives you back 10% of what you've been dishing out, you get all butthurt over it and go crying to the moderators. I have seen this play out a hundred times over the last few years, it's ridiculous. If you treated others with basic respect you wouldn't have these problems.