Comments on the Shooting of Kiko Battles.

[Springfielder]

I'm sorry, but he contributed to his own demise.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

if you honestly believe the police were justified in killing him, do us a favour and wear your brownshirt so we'll see you coming.  if you honestly believe the police didn't lie their rears off about eactly what happened, i've a lovely bridge to sell you in new york.

(edited to remove more personal remarks--don't want to be accused ov trolling, after all)

[Springfielder]

what, you troll    I proudly wear my brown shirt...although how that helps to see one coming, is beyond me.

[Joe]

For those of you unfamiliar with this incident, Kiko Battles was a convicted felon less than a year out of prison for robbery and assault. Police tried to flag him down for jaywalking, but he decided to run (probably because he was illegally packing a stolen handgun at the time). When the police caught up with him, he resisted. The police tazered him, at which point a loaded handgun fell out of Battle's pocket. The police then claim that Battle's picked up the gun and pointed it in their direction. The police then shot him dead.

Battles relatives claim that the police actually murdered him in cold blood and shot him in the back. His relatives also claim that he was unarmed. All credible evidence points to the police telling the complete truth and Battles family lying. The police officers in this incident were totally exonerated of any wrong doing. This is all well documented in multiple TU articles.

I don't really intend to comment on this issue any further. I just wanted to restate the facts of the incident for those who were unfamiliar or undecided. If someone, in all honesty, wants to believe the point of view of Sheclown, KuroiKetsunoHana, and Stephendare that is certainly their right - and I highly doubt I'll ever convince them otherwise.

[Springfielder]

Nothing that the kid did was a capital offense.

There is no 'contributory' factor to his death.

The cops could have simply let him run and issued a warrant.  No one was in danger of their lives.

It really is as simple as that.  Any justification that the cops had for shooting this kid would also justify the grandmother from having shot both cops to death to prevent her grandson's murder.

Why can't it simply be enough to recognize that this was a tragedy without being as offensive as crap?

Nothing this kid, who by the way was in his 20's, so he was an adult....and the capital offense as you put it...I guess a felon in possession of a firearm is okay? Gee, I was under the impression that's a felony and would've landed him back in jail. The contributory factor, was the gun in his hands.

As for the shooting, I suppose you were there, on the other side of the fence when he had the gun in his hand? And why didn't the cops just let him run...with a gun. Yeah, that's something we should hope that the police would do next time.

As for letting this go as just a tragedy....I can't, not when an armed felon is the subject of being memorialized. He wasn't some innocent guy, as some would have you believe. And sorry, when it comes to someone dropping a gun, stopping to pick it up and then the rest is history....in no way compares to the grandmother having the same legal rights to shot and kill police officers. Not even close.

[Springfielder]

the answer is yes and the point was proven with him being in possession of a firearm. That's a fact, and that was a felony, and would have landed him right back in prison.

I don't really care if anyone asked for my opinion, and I don't recall where you were specifically asked either...hence this being a forum. My opinion and the facts are only offensive (and certainly that's merely a personal opinion, since I violate no rules/policies), because you don't agree. What I find offensive, and of course, there goes my opinion again....is that you can somehow relate this Fred Phelps, the hateful protester who protests at the funerals of our military that have died while in service. That's pretty sad.

Again, whether or not you agree or care for my expressed thoughts, views, opinions, makes no difference and to make personal insults when none were spoken, until you stepped in with yours. I never insulted you, and would appreciate the same in return.

If having a discussion about this situation helps to memorialize them, then I suppose someone should print this all out and tack it to the fence.

[buckethead]

To ask if the kid deserved "capital punishment" is irrelevant. The correct question is: Did the officer fear for his life and/or the life of another?

I am not convinced either way. Why is this the second time this officer has found himself with a gun pointed at him for stopping and questioning someone? Is it his demeanor? Is it common for officers to face the barrel of a gun during encounters with people?

I understand that a family will take the side of their own, just like the police often will. It looks bad to me, but I have not been the one in the line of fire.

It is not clear to me which is the case here.

A young man is dead, and that is almost always a tragedy.

[NotNow]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi

This is the so called 'exoneration' story.  In which a police officer is brought in front of an internal committee of the JSO and passes on their recommendation to the State Attorney.

The review board found that the officers didn't violate any departmental policies or procedures and don't face discipline or retraining.

There is no oversight, and is one of the many reasons that the community has demanded a citizens review board.  

That is incorrect.  The case is investigated by the State Attorney.  Once that investigation is complete, and any charges are dealt with, then the Response to Resistance Board meets to determine whether the policies of the JSO were followed.  The recommendations of the board are forwarded to the Sheriff.  The Sheriff decides whether to accept or modify any of those recommendations.  The State Attorney decides on the legality of Police shootings, and the RTR board recommends to the Sheriff whether they think any JSO policies were violated.  

I attended this RTR hearing, and it was quite clear that the Officers acted properly and within policy.  While the death of any individual is a sobering unwanted result of Police interaction, Officers have a right and duty to defend themselves and others.  I will not rehash this case again, it is covered in threads of the time.   The facts of the case were unquestionable, based on witness testimony AND physical evidence.  But as has been noted earlier, some will just refuse to observe what doesn't fit their own ideas.

[Springfielder]

Oh thank you for clearing that up and making it sooo much easier for me to comprehend. All those years of college have been for not. No, the carrying of a stolen firearm by a convicted felon would not have lead him to a death sentence. It would have been a felony charge. Which still makes no difference when you point a gun at a police officer.

You see it my saying that his actions lead to his demise, as disrespectful? And here I was stating a fact. I fail to agree with you that my comments, any of them, dishonored the dead, and really, what difference would it make, he is in fact, dead. I never said I was glad he was dead, never said anything negative about him, other than facts that he was a convicted felon with a firearm.

Now, what difference does the capital crime matter? What, the police should only have done their jobs, if they believed his actions would eventually have lead to a death sentence through trial? What would have been an end result via the court system has absolutely no bearing on what transpired.

[Springfielder]

Untrue, he had a firearm, which he pointed at the police officer...that behavior is what contributed to his death.

The source of his death:
1. the felon had a firearm and pointed it at police
2. the officer has every legal right to defend himself, and did
3. the training officers go through which then leads to knowledge and reaction to a crime in progress; which requires split second decisions based upon that training

[buckethead]

If he did not do anything that would have legally led to his death, then his behavior did not contribute to it.

The cause of death came from two sources, the guns used by the off duty police officers and their judgement to use deadly force.

Simple as that.

Does aiming a weapon at a police officer constitute a capital crime punishable by death if convicted?... No.

It can lead to a police officer pulling out his own weapon.

The part that disturbs me is the guy was shot 9 times.

Again, I'm not in the line of fire. Perhaps my gun would commence blazing procedures if a person pointed a gun at me with the possible/probable intent to fire it.

[Springfielder]

Springfielder:

And your point is?

Whether or not the officer was within his 'legal rights' or not, it doesnt take away his responsibility for what happened.

And there is not, nor was there any evidence of the sort that he pointed it at the officer, in fact your claim is so ludicrous that its laughable.  Sure, SF, a boy who was tazed 'split seconds' before had the time to pick up his gun, turn and aim at a cop before being shot six times in the back.

Instead of giving both sides the benefit of the doubt, and withholding judgement, you came onto the thread and started in with your bs, and cant understand why anyone thinks you are dishonoring the dead.

Your remarks are very unflattering to you, and do not speak very well for anyone.

I don't expect you to know any better, but you arent helping out the cause of crime and justice at all.

You are the one coming into a discussion without the knowledge or training to appropriately address the situation as it happened. You are the one who came in dishing out the bs, not I. If there are any remarks made by anyone that reflects unflattering upon themselves, it's not I. So your summation is meaningless and without merit. I actually have the training, and know exactly what it is like and what the laws are that govern the duties of police officers. You, however, speak from an untrained in the field, citizen that makes assumptions without fact.

Therefore, if my facts,  based upon experience and training within the field of law enforcement, dishonor the dead by stating them....then so be it.

The case had been reviewed by the State Attorneys office, and the officers actions leading up to and including the use of deadly force were deemed within the law and justified. This has all been debated and discussed at length.

You may continue with your insults and attempts to belittle me, that's fine...enjoy yourself, at my expense, as it matters not because it still will not change the facts.

[ChriswUfGator]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi

This is the so called 'exoneration' story.  In which a police officer is brought in front of an internal committee of the JSO and passes on their recommendation to the State Attorney.

The review board found that the officers didn't violate any departmental policies or procedures and don't face discipline or retraining.

There is no oversight, and is one of the many reasons that the community has demanded a citizens review board. 

That is incorrect.  The case is investigated by the State Attorney.  Once that investigation is complete, and any charges are dealt with, then the Response to Resistance Board meets to determine whether the policies of the JSO were followed.  The recommendations of the board are forwarded to the Sheriff.  The Sheriff decides whether to accept or modify any of those recommendations.  The State Attorney decides on the legality of Police shootings, and the RTR board recommends to the Sheriff whether they think any JSO policies were violated. 

I attended this RTR hearing, and it was quite clear that the Officers acted properly and within policy.  While the death of any individual is a sobering unwanted result of Police interaction, Officers have a right and duty to defend themselves and others.  I will not rehash this case again, it is covered in threads of the time.   The facts of the case were unquestionable, based on witness testimony AND physical evidence.  But as has been noted earlier, some will just refuse to observe what doesn't fit their own ideas.

Uh huh. That's not a citizen's review board...

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh thank you for clearing that up and making it sooo much easier for me to comprehend. All those years of college have been for not. No, the carrying of a stolen firearm by a convicted felon would not have lead him to a death sentence. It would have been a felony charge. Which still makes no difference when you point a gun at a police officer.

You see it my saying that his actions lead to his demise, as disrespectful? And here I was stating a fact. I fail to agree with you that my comments, any of them, dishonored the dead, and really, what difference would it make, he is in fact, dead. I never said I was glad he was dead, never said anything negative about him, other than facts that he was a convicted felon with a firearm.

Now, what difference does the capital crime matter? What, the police should only have done their jobs, if they believed his actions would eventually have lead to a death sentence through trial? What would have been an end result via the court system has absolutely no bearing on what transpired.

How can you say that what would have been the end result in the court system has "absolutely no bearing" on anything? That's really the whole point here, isn't it? To enforce the law. Not to deal out whatever brand of justice an off-duty cop feels entitled to give. Your comments are starting to sound like you condone any type of vigilante justice, as long as it's a cop doing the shooting. Who needs that old "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" anyway?

You need to do the self-check on this one man. If it can happen to him, then it can happen to you. I know that's a shocking thing to say in this "I don't care as long as it's not me" environment, however it's the truth. Rights cannot be selectively upheld, or else they are lost.

These officers had no business hassling the two men for nothing more than walking down a street while black. The fact that, ultimately, once they had already tasered the guy and had him knocked down on the ground, a gun fell out of his pocket, and even then that's if you believe the cop's story (they lie all the time), is completely irrelevant. None of it would have occurred had it not been for the officers' hassling him without reasonable suspicion in the first place.

The standard here is Terry v. Ohio, and requires that an officer have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed before randomly stopping people. If the officer has reasonable suspicion, he can do a quick check to ensure the suspect is unarmed. Here, the officers accosted the guy, and had already tasered him and had him knocked down on the ground. They went well beyond the scope of their constitutional authority, without justification. There were multiple witnesses besides just the boy's family, and nobody has even alleged he was doing anything except walking down the street.

Cops know the dangers inherent in their jobs when they apply for them, and no doubt know the dangers inherent in their jobs each week as they deposit their relatively hefty paychecks. I am utterly sick of the public reaction in these type of situations, where we're essentially creating a whole new class of citizen with more rights and protections (cops) simply because they perform a task they knew to be dangerous when they applied for it. An officer's safety should not be a blanket excuse to impinge upon the rights of whoever they come into contact with.

[ChriswUfGator]

I actually have the training, and know exactly what it is like and what the laws are that govern the duties of police officers. You, however, speak from an untrained in the field, citizen that makes assumptions without fact.

Oh you're a cop. Well that certainly explains your position on this topic. It also explains your horrible attitude...

And you really shouldn't talk down to Stephen as an "untrained citizen"...in reality that means he's your employer.