JSO involved shooting in Springfield

[Adam White]

Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.

I understand what you're saying, but you're basically blaming the victim.

Are you saying he is faultless?

Working on the assumption that the facts, as stated earlier, are correct...

Yes. No unarmed person fleeing from the police should be shot and killed. That's like blaming the drunk girl for being raped at a frat party. Yes, maybe she engaged in irresponsible behavior, but no amount of irresponsibility on her part excuses the rapist's actions.

So what exactly is a policeman who has been on a lengthy high speed chase with a suspect supposed to do?  Stop and ask if the suspect has a weapon and risk getting shot himself?  The police have a very difficult job to do.  It's easy to judge when you are not in their position risking your life everyday.  How about teaching our children to have respect for each other?  Respect for yourself, respect for the law, etc.   

Before I answer, I want to make the following caveat: I don't know what happened in this case and I think it's best to wait for an investigation outcome before jumping to conclusions.

Now, in general terms:

1) A policeman shouldn't shoot anyone unless he has reason to suspect his life is in danger or that the suspect is a danger to the public. A suspect running from a collision likely is not a threat to the public - but that depends on the nature of the preceding case. If the suspect was in a collision after, say, an armed carjacking or shooting someone, then that's possibly different. I would argue that, based on the 'facts' of this case as I understand them to be, there doesn't appear to be a compelling case in support of the police officer using deadly force (I am a bit of a hypocrite here, having started with a statement about not jumping to conclusions).

2) Police officers have been trained in this forever. Some make mistakes - after all, they're human. Not all cops shoot unarmed, fleeing suspects. In fact, most don't. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and that doesn't mean that the police officer is absolved of any responsibility.

3) Regarding your final point - respect for the law, etc. I don't see why you can't do that AND also expect cops not to shoot you if you run.

[Adam White]

So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?

Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".

[Popeye]

So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?

Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".

As the parent of a policeman I respectfully disagree with you and Mr. Dare. 

[Popeye]

So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?

Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".

As the parent of a policeman I respectfully disagree with you and Mr. Dare.

You think we teach and show respect by killing people? 

Would you say that this is the primary job of a policeman?  Im not sure if I understand the context of you disagreeing as the parent of one.

Would you agree outside of that context?

Or are you trying to say something else?

I'm not trying to say anything other than my son is a police officer and as his mother I support him.  I hope he is never put in a situation like the one discussed (although I know that he will) where he has to make a decision in the heat of the moment and have everyone judge him.  Maybe I will run into you at the salon again and I can explain it better to you in person.  Have a great day!

[Adam White]

So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?

Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".

As the parent of a policeman I respectfully disagree with you and Mr. Dare.

For the record, I have no issue with the police. But I think poor policing on the part of individuals besmirches the reputation of law enforcement as a whole.

[sheclown]

The point is that:

Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments may deprive any person "of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." - See more at: http://civilrights.uslegal.com/due-process-violation/#sthash.3NiafkDp.dpuf

In this case the defendant was deprived his due process.

Do I want people stealing cars and driving down residential streets where they can harm innocent people?  Absolutely not.  On the other hand, I also do not want to live in a society which does not allow a rather large percentage of its population constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

[Adam White]

In this case the defendant was deprived his due process.

He didn't even get the chance to be a defendant 

[Adam White]

Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".

lol adam still talking about how hes wrong on 5 pts

lololololololololololololololololololololol

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

The point is that:

Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments may deprive any person "of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." - See more at: http://civilrights.uslegal.com/due-process-violation/#sthash.3NiafkDp.dpuf

In this case the defendant was deprived his due process.

Are you saying that the 'defendant' had no hand in depriving himself of due process in this case?

And don't read that as 'victim blaming', because it's not.  This instance is the exception to traffic stops, not the rule.  The odds of something bad happening increase everytime someone compounds one bad decision with another and another and another.    So again, while I'm not in any way implying that the shooting was justifiable - I don't know.  I wasn't there and I don't have access to the unfiltered facts of the case.  What I am implying is that I'm growing tired of the cop blaming when the so-called 'victim's actions cause the situation to escalate.

Let me pose another question:

Would there be Civil Rights activists and protests over the incident if the officer had been killed in the crash or shot, or would it just be considered a tragedy and a 'job risk'?

I'm pretty sure there would not.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Um.  not enough coffee yet this morning?

That's a trick question.   Is it ever "enough"?

Not sure what you're getting at though.

[sheclown]

Westsider -- there is a difference here.  The officer is a government official.  It is the government which shot the defendant without a trial .  Unless, of course, it is determined to be not "justified" .

I spoke with the family today. It is this determination that they are waiting for. 

In other words.  Who shot  Vernell Bing, Jr. ?  The city of Jacksonville?  Or an errant officer.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Westsider -- there is a difference here.  The officer is a government official.  It is the government which shot the defendant without a trial .  Unless, of course, it is determined to be not "justified" .

I spoke with the family today. It is this determination that they are waiting for. 

In other words.  Who shot  Vernell Bing, Jr. ?  The city of Jacksonville?  Or an errant officer.

Sheclown do you truly believe that the family really gives a damn whether or not the cop's actions are deemed 'justified'?  It's not going to bring their son back. 

The 'fact' that seems to continue to get glossed over is that Bing put HIMSELF in harms way.  This isn't blaming Bing for pulling the trigger; but you can't ignore the fact that he had a tremendous part in escalating something routine into a front page news story.

The question that I keep seeing:  "Did the cop have to shoot him?" needs to be replaced with something along the lines of:  "If he had just pulled over would he still be here today?"

I say this from the viewpoint of someone who has had numerous encounters with LEOs.  I have yet to be tazed, shot or otherwise 'roughed up' any more than I deserved.  I have not always been particularly respectful, but I have never acted violently or tried to run away.  Is it because I'm special (feel free to read that as white male) or is there some other mysterious force at work here (feel free to read that as owning my fuck-ups and accepting whatever consequence might come)? 

[sheclown]

Do I think the family cares about JUSTICE?  Yeah.  I do.

While I was speaking to the family, two men drove up and parked in the lot across the street.  They appeared to be conducting an investigation -- they were looking at skid marks and walking back and forth across the street.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

We got it. you like that this kid was killed.  Because: Personal responsibility, apparently.  So now he will never have the chance to be personally responsible. 

Ambivalent would probably be a better description.  Because:  Personal responsibility.  I can see both sides and don't totally agree or disagree with either, but I'm enjoying the continued dialogue in more of a devil's advocate type of role. 

You seem very intent on this, for reasons which I cannot fathom.

I just have a bit more time on my hands while procrasitinating on my current project.  The topic is really irrelevant.

So far in the thread, you've floated the old 'but if more kids were shot to death while fleeing, wouldn't that cut down on fleeing' canard.

Half true.  I floated the new 'if people knew they were going to be shot to death if they fleed, would that cut down on fleeing' theory.  But I appreciate your not-so-subtle attempt.

Which is a theoretical question.  When the question was put to you whether or not you have noticed any slowdown in fleeing despite high profile shootings of the capital offense fleeing class, you answered that the question was theoretical and you couldn't answer it.

When a cop weighed in and shared that fleeing is a very common occurrence, you seem to have lost all interest in the line of thinking.

Actually the discussion started moving in another direction and since my original question and subsequent follow-ups were doing nothing more than circling the drain, so I just went with it.  No need to drive it back to the original circle when you can start creating more.

Can we pause for a moment and accept that no: gunning down fleeing people doesn't stop people from fleeing?

I can't accept that any more than I would accept that banning all guns (or having every single person carry) would stop people from getting shot.

Why?  I'm so glad you asked.

Because:

Because: People are not plants and can run from danger?

[camarocane]

This is the point. No, people would not stop fleeing. You are dealing with human emotion. If people are scared, they may run. Should they, no they shouldn't, but you can't control emotion sometimes. Some people can't get past the point that yes, sometimes you should let a criminal run away. They had the car, the kid was hurt, they would have found him.
It's a point as a conservative, I don't understand. There was a recent long discussion on nextdoor website about a car being stolen and so many chimed in that they would shoot anyone on their property trying to steal their car...so thieves better not step foot on their property...blah blah..SYG and all.
Look, I own many firearms, if I had to protect my family or myself, I would and I would live with that. Am I going to shoot some punk thief dead for trying to steal my vehicle or break into my garage, hell no. I don't want to live with that every time I fire up the Chevy.

Unless the cops life or immediate bystanders life is in danger, you either chase the crook on foot or let him go to catch him another day. May he hurt someone in the mean time. Slight possibility. But the risk/reward in killing a running crook as opposed to catching him later doesn't add up.

My fiancée and I had this same "what if" discussion yesterday. In all honesty, if I saw someone breaking into/stealing my car I wouldn't approach them. Much less approach them with the intent to kill. The law does not allow you to take a life unless your life or someone else's life it being threatened. Even if they broke into your attached garage, you have no right. However, if they enter your home, threat or no; you have the right to use deadly force.

I'll await more information before making a judgment because all we know is the following:
A. He had a criminal history
B. He had intent to kill and harm sometime before he ran
C. Where he was shot.

It would be helpful to know why the officer chose to shoot rather then pursue to begin with.
Did he feel threatened at the moment or moments before he pulled the trigger?
Did he feel that someone else's life with in immediate danger?
Was someone else's life with in immediate danger?

My personal feelings are you don't break the law. Right wrong or indifferent, you play with fire, sometimes you get burned.