Comments on the Shooting of Kiko Battles.

[ChriswUfGator]

We're saying the same thing, so in this, we're in agreement. I'm just saying the the specifics of the condition of the sidewalk would have been part of the SAO investigation and would certainly be part of any in Federal probe into a civil rights violation

Well, the civil rights act is generally civilly enforced in these situations, under section 1983. Which I believe is being done, as they have sued JSO. However, the SAO investigation, and JSO's "Review Board" comprised of other cops, are both a total joke and everyone knows it. If there was some random paving stone that someone threw into a vacant yard, Corey wouldn't have a problem calling it a sidewalk.

I happen to lean strongly towards doing what other municipalities have done, and having these issued governed by a true independent review board, not a "board" that is entirely comprised of all cops who determine the fate of other cops. JSO's "board" has literally, in the entirety of its existence, never determined a single time that a shooting wasn't justified.

And this is the same board, FYI, that routinely labels police-involved deaths "self-inflicted" to avoid paying civil damages. I'd really love to see someone shoot and kill themselves...9 times...in the back. That must be some magic trick indeed!

This is, like most of the statements you have posted here , untrue.  The SAO investigation is independent of the JSO and determines whether a police involved shooting is within the law.  If you don't like how the SAO is doing their job then you can make a complaint to the FBI.  You should know this if you are really a lawyer.

The JSO review is strictly to assess if a police involved shooting is within JSO Policies, which are more strict than state law.  The Sheriff, and only the Sheriff, can apply administrative penalties upon an Officer (suspension or dismissal).   The board has no authority to and does not "label" any death "self inflicted".  What are you referring to?  Or are you just making it up as you go along?  You obviously have no idea of how police shootings are investigated.  You are speaking out of bias and not from facts.  Use that legal education and do some research before making such false statements. 

Other cities (not most, as you allege) have developed a "citizen review" that makes recommendations to an appointed Police Chief, not a constitutional Officer.  These are subject to the same politics and vagaries as other city "commissions" and are commonly used as political sledgehammers instead of investigative tools. 

The JSO Review board has recommended discipline many times, including dismissal, and the Sheriff has acted on those recommendations.  Why don't you do some research before making erroneous statements?   You see, facts are important.

When will the legal profession have citizen review of their actions?

I'll repeat myself.  Had any of you bothered to actually go to the scene, or even attend the review board, you would have seen physical evidence and heard actual testimony of witnesses.  The facts were quite clear when observed and "personal opinion" and "rumor" were removed. 

And, if you really believe that the stop that day was "unconstitutional", then you should offer to represent the family.  It is obvious that when an infraction is directly observed by an Officer that he has a right to detain.  What law school did you go to?

So did you not actually read what I've written, or are you just this dumb?

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it's the former, then why don't you re-read what I've written. It's plain as day that I've never said the SAO and JSO are one and the same, and I'm clearly aware of who does what.

My issue is that our current state attorney isn't independent, since she ran on a platform of "supporting law enforcement" and, indeed, the JSO's union was responsible for getting Shorstein voted out of office. She knows what side her bread is buttered on. That's not "independent" in my book.

Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct.

Which is why I'm still suggesting an independent citizen review board.

And why don't you find me all my other "untrue" statements. I have faith that you can at least work a search function, even if reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. To my knowledge I've not said anything untrue here, and if I were wrong about something then I'm happy to be corrected. So enlighten me...

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

unfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

[ChriswUfGator]

Are you stating that the image that you provided is the place where the two men were forced to walk in the street because the sidewalk was not adequate?  What is that exact address?

No, that's not the same place at all...you're right, sheclown tried to mislead everyone and you caught her!

Because, you know, it's just so common for people to put up flowers, flags, cards, candles, and a big memorial at some random place where NOBODY DIED...

Seriously, are you kidding? This has got to be a joke, right? What IS the deal with your nonsensical posts?

[buckethead]

You are on the mark, Kurol, except for one point. No on suggested the kid deserved to be killed, but that it was a tragic result of his very poor decision.

At least that's how I'm reading it. I won't presume all cops liars or all kids thugs. Either is unfair.

[ChriswUfGator]

unfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

Well, believe it or not, sometimes I agree with the cops, and other times I think they're out of line.

In this particular case, I think they were way out of line. They accosted this guy for doing nothing more than walking down the street while black. And they did so without reasonable suspicion, and without any valid jaywalking argument since the lack of passable sidewalks in that area makes the jaywalking argument total nonsense.

Here's an obvious fact, for everyone who is arguing that he deserved it. People don't put up memorials to felons who go down in a gun battle against the righteous arm of the law. The neighborhood clearly knows what it saw, and you wouldn't see such an outpouring of grief if this guy had really tried to take out two cops and they lawfully returned fire in self-defense.

But I'd just love for someone to explain to me how shooting someone in the back 9 times as they're already trying to retreat could possibly have been "self-defense". Kind of a fly in the ointment there, no? I can't be the only one who sees that this makes no sense...

[buckethead]

Please point out where anyone has stated he "deserved" it.

[NotNow]

Sir, "a wider view" of the original picture infers that the image is indicative of where the two men in question had to "walk in the road" to avoid some kind of blockage.  I was simply pointing out that neither she, nor you, know where that point actually is.  

Why would you call me "dumb", when you claim to be an attorney and you seem to not comprehend the procedures involved here.  You speak of Angela Corey as if she is personally conducting these investigations.  You are assuming that her employees and her are willing to LIE in order to maintain some relationship with the police.  Yet you offer no evidence of any such lie, and are unwilling to complain to the FBI of such malfeasance.  You don't even seem to be aware of the facts of the case.  

1.  You claim the detention was unconstitutional.  The Officer observed a violation of the law and detained the violators.  Your statement is untrue.  If you think the sidewalk was not adequate, show us how.  The SAO and RTR Board looked at the area that the Officers, witnesses, and the other man stopped pointed out.  Multiple images were provided at the JSO Board hearing.  

2.  You claim the JSO RTR Board "routinely labels police-involved deaths "self-inflicted" to avoid paying civil damages."  The RTR Board can not declare any death "self inflicted" and has never done so.

3.  I see you deleted your claim that the JSO Board had never found fault with any shooting.  Thanks for at least deleting incorrect information.

My posts are factual and I don't call names.  Your tendency towards drama and name calling in posting, along with just plain WRONG information says something else.  Are you REALLY a lawyer?

[Springfielder]

unfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

Sorry, but that's a completely untrue statement. There are plenty of us who may tend to take sides, as it were, but it's not always for the same side. I know for myself, I have defended what appeared to be appropriate actions taken by law enforcement, and I've also spoken up when I felt their actions were not. There's bad apples in every grouping, law enforcement included. I'm nobody's fool and certainly don't automatically take sides, as you seem to think we all do. I prefer to review the facts as I know them, read them, view them and make my own educated summations.

[NotNow]

It is called "prejudice".  And it is quite common on this forum. 

Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: \ˈpre-jə-dəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment â€" more at judicial
Date: 13th century
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

synonyms see predilection

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Please point out where anyone has stated he "deserved" it.

springfielder's first post, for starters.  he didn't use those exact words, but his meaning was clear.

and okay, okay, so not everyöne's as entrenched on their side ov the fence as i thought.  'pologies, there--aside from your own refutations, i haven't seen any evidence ov anyöne taking things on a case-by-case basis.  for my part, it's hard to believe anything that comes from JSO as long as 'bodybags' rutherford is in charge.

[NotNow]

unfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

This ignores the fact that a complete and thorough investigation by the SAO found the Officers acted within the law.  ALL of the witnesses, not just the family of the suspect, should be heard.  

To ignore the facts makes you guilty of exactly what you are accusing the SAO and JSO of.  

[Springfielder]

Please point out where anyone has stated he "deserved" it.

springfielder's first post, for starters.  he didn't use those exact words, but his meaning was clear.

and okay, okay, so not everyöne's as entrenched on their side ov the fence as i thought.  'pologies, there--aside from your own refutations, i haven't seen any evidence ov anyöne taking things on a case-by-case basis.  for my part, it's hard to believe anything that comes from JSO as long as 'bodybags' rutherford is in charge.

My first post:

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

Where exactly did I say that he deserved it? I didn't, nor implied it, don't try to change my post into fitting your agenda

[buckethead]

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

I read nothing in this that makes any reference to whether he deserved to die. Only that he contributed to his own demise. Sorry to repeat exactly, but there it is.

If the event did happen as reported, that would just be a simple fact.

I've seen a couple jerk cops in action, and I don't doubt that there haven't been cops guilty of murder/homicide.

It has not been proven to be the case here, but it still seems like other alternatives were available. (At least to me, an untrained civilian and parent) I can also see it from the officer's side.

Pointing a gun at another armed person is a deadly business. The only real issues here are:

1) Did the officers have the authority to stop the man.

2) Did the man aim, or attempt to aim the weapon at the officers?

We can only hope the real truth is clearly proven in court. As I understand it, courts have already ruled in the favor of the officers in question.

A family and community can still mourn the loss of a son, in spite of any poor decisions or unwise actions.

[NotNow]

No, the SAO decides whether the Officers actions were within the law.  

The JSO RTR Board decides whether the Officers actions were within JSO policy.  

ChrisWUFGator said:
"Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct. "

Apparently wrong again. 

[Springfielder]

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 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.

and your point is? I still did not say anyone deserved to die