Comments on the Shooting of Kiko Battles.

[Springfielder]

I posted it for you Springfielder.  You said you couldnt just let it go as a tragedy,...since people were memorializing a felon.  Don't try and backpedal from your statements now.

backpedal how...I've not taken back anything I've said...and I won't stand by and let others claim I said something I did not

[Springfielder]

not even when the "others" is your own post.

Not very impressive.

show me where I've gone back on what I've said

[ChriswUfGator]

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.  

Actually, I haven't been wrong yet.

I'm not going to engage in some useless and unending back-and-forth with you, when (as usual) your posts are utter nonsense and I don't see the point in wasting my time. And I'm not "claiming to be" anything, Stephen pointed out I have a J.D. And I do. WTF's your point?

[ChriswUfGator]

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

When you say someone caused their own demise, that would generally be the meaning. We playing semantics now?

[Springfielder]

No, I'm not...I merely stated a fact. His actions did contribute to his demise. In no way can that be construed into saying that I stated he deserved to die.

[Springfielder]

Your words, not mine at all

[NotNow]

Quote from: NotNow on Today at 06:08:15 PM

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.  



This is an intentional overstatement.

No, it is a correct statement.  The State Attorney's Office decides whether the Officers actions were within the law.  And, of course, ALL of the witnesses SHOULD be heard.

What the review board found was that

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

Again, as I have stated repeatedly, that is EXACTLY what the JSO Board does.  If you would study my post a bit more, you should realize that I said the "SAO" investigation.

It did not rule as to whether or not the officer had operated within the bounds of 'law', as this determination would have to additionally be made in a Civil Trial for wrongful death, and is outside the purview of any review board.

I really don't have the time or space to inform you of the difference between the criminal investigation of and incident and a civil action involving an incident.  At this point I would have no faith in any explanation offered by ChrisWUFGator either.  I'll just point out that it has already been decided that the Officers acted "within the law".  As I have REPEATEDLY said, if you disagree you can complain of a civil rights violation to the FBI.  They can initiate a criminal investigation of a violation of the suspects civil rights.  This is tiresome.  I thought you two guys claimed I am an illiterate dummy and both of you have claimed at least some legal education?  What gives?

This seems like an intentionally attempt to mislead and deceive readers about the scope of the review boards findings and indeed its very authority.

Nope, you are mistaken in reading my post and in your statements.   I understand.  I have also misread in the past.  If you wish to withdraw these statements due to a simple error I understand and won't haunt you about it.

Even more reason to implement a Citizen Review Board immediately.

Actually, you have just helped to prove just the opposite.    

[Springfielder]

except that they all are.  are you really going to be so tiresome as to make them be requoted?  You might as well own up to them.  They are your words, after all.

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

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

and this still does not show where I've said that he deserved to die. You can continue to repost, but it still doesn't change what I said into what you want to say I did.

[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.  

Actually, I haven't been wrong yet.

I'm not going to engage in some useless and unending back-and-forth with you, when (as usual) your posts are utter nonsense and I don't see the point in wasting my time. And I'm not "claiming to be" anything, Stephen pointed out I have a J.D. And I do. WTF's your point?

My point is that you have been factually incorrect in the very few times that you have even resorted to facts.  Most of your posts have been simple opinion pieces of what you think of law enforcement.  I am proud that you have a J.D.  Now use the critical thinking skills that you should have learned when earning it.

[sheclown]

This forum is widely read and respected...it takes on controversial topics, such as this one.

It wins awards.

Feelings get hurt and passions get flared up when we bring up painful topics.

But talking about these things is important.

[NotNow]

I have explained this process several times now.  For a guy who claims legal "experience" you seem to lack any familiarity at all with criminal procedure.  

I will type slowly. Please pay attention.

The SAO conducts an independent investigation of a death caused by Police.  The SAO determines whether the Police acted "justifiably" or "criminally" in the use of force according to Florida State Statute.  

Once the SAO investigation is complete, the JSO RTR Board reviews the Officers actions to ensure that department policies and training were followed.

IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, OR A CREDIBLE ACCUSATION OF SUCH, THEN THE FBI WILL INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION OF THAT VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

There is no such evidence in this case.  Unless you have something that I am unaware of.  If that is the case, then I would ask you to contact the FBI and give them your evidence and your statement. 

There is no contradiction here.  The SAO does not investigate or prosecute federal crimes.  It can not be any more clear.  These attempts to bicker just make you guys look silly. 

Did you want to withdraw your earlier statements when you "conflated" what the SAO does with what the JSO Board does.  (There is no such thing as an SAO Board.)  You also claimed that a civil court would decide whether the Officers acted "within the law".  That is also an incorrect statement.  I have offered you the chance to retract your statements due to error.  Do you wish to do that, or not?

Are you now claiming to believe that the SAO did not find that Nobles and Terrell were justified in this shooting?  Have YOU done YOUR research? 

Despite your obvious ignorance of criminal procedure and the investigation of police involved shootings, not to mention the use of force by law enforcement officers, you continue to come up with arguments that just continue to illustrate your lack of expertise in this area.  I suppose you can always go back to calling me names.

[NotNow]

Just more talk from you.  My description of the SAO investigation was EXACTLY what it is.  My description of the JSO review was EXACTLY what it is.  

YOUR attempts to tell me what my posts mean or infer is just another dishonest and obviously desparate tactic.  You apparently still do not have a grasp of how the SAO investigation and the JSO review are conducted and used.  I have "implied" nothing.  You, on the other hand, have resorted to your usual tactics.  Your posts confuse the investigations you have confused a civil trial with a civil rights investigation.  

There is no civil rights investigation that I know of.  Do you know any different?  

The family has filed a civil lawsuit.  It has yet to be decided.

I don't have to provide "cover" for anything.  The SAO has made its finding as has the JSO RTR Board.  The use of force by the Officers was within the scope of the law.  That is a fact.

Your statement:
"You got into a discussion about citizen review boards, and in the process made a blanket statement designed to make people think that the affair had been completely investigated and that the officer---and by implication, the routine slaying of citizens by police officers----was justifiable and 'within the law'."

Is disgusting and without merit at all.  Your accusation that Officers are "routinely" slaying citizens is just the kind of baseless crap that makes your reputation well earned.  

Your continuous use of fallacious arguments such as "This was clearly an attempt to bolster the impression that police have the right to just shoot people. (and you may argue this if you wish, but its the basic point of your posts)"

just points to your lack of factual arguments and your lack of a grasp of the subject.  So you just do what you always do and go to the LIE.  This says something, doesn't it?

Your bias, and ChrisWUFGator's, is obvious.  You owe every Officer an apology.  I know that we will see that the same time you admit you were mistaken in your previous posts.  Your mind is obviously closed.  This case has, in fact, been investigated and the Officers were found to have acted within the law and within policy.  

[NotNow]

I think "credibility" is self explanatory in the preceding posts.  I think the truth is obvious as well.

[strider]

The officers involved in this incident were “hunting“, no not hunting to shoot someone, but hunting for someone to harass or arrest.  That is why they made multiple “community policing” stops that day. That is why when they were being paid by SPAR Council, they where out side of the area SPAR Council had any influence on. That is why they stopped these two young men. They did not stop them because they knew one of them as carrying a gun illegally or because they saw them involved in some larger illegal activity.  The only law being broken was the sidewalk issue and the state of the sidewalks tells us it was selective enforcement not good police work.

Perhaps these officers were bored, I don’t know.  I do know that they got more than they bargain for.  At least I sincerely hope they did.  I do not want to believe the shooting was the result of something they planned. What should have been nothing but a another prejudicial stop that once again proved to the community that cops harass young black men escalated to the death of a young man. We do not know if Kiko intended to shoot at the police and we will never know.  We do know that the police felt threatened and so they responded as they have been trained and while many of us question the need, we were not there in their position and can not comment on that need.  

We can form an opinion and for many, that opinion is that there could have been a better result than Kiko’s death.  But to have had that happen, both parties, the police and Kiko, would have had to have done something different, not just the police, not just Kiko. This was a very unfortunate incident and both the police and Kiko share the blame. Kiko because he did indeed have a gun and the police because the stop was bogus to start with and it is obvious that they made mistakes during the stop and lost real control of the situation.

The sad thing here is that neither the community nor the police learned anything from this. The police will still make the same kind of stops, make the same mistakes and the community will still distrust the police because of it. Which in turn makes is more likely a young man like Kiko will end up in prison or carrying a gun.  The madness will continue.

What Sheclown and myself do with men in recovery puts us in contact with both old and young men who, like Kiko, made mistakes in their lives and broke the law at one time or another.  It does not make them terrible people, it makes them human.  Sheclown started this thread, I believe, to remind everyone that a tragedy occurred and the result of that tragedy, regardless of whom you wish to blame, is that a family lost a loved one and the community lost a young man, with all the potential that a young man, every young man, has.  It was a loss for all of us whether you chose to realize it or not.

[ChriswUfGator]

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. 

Actually, I haven't been wrong yet.

I'm not going to engage in some useless and unending back-and-forth with you, when (as usual) your posts are utter nonsense and I don't see the point in wasting my time. And I'm not "claiming to be" anything, Stephen pointed out I have a J.D. And I do. WTF's your point?

My point is that you have been factually incorrect in the very few times that you have even resorted to facts.  Most of your posts have been simple opinion pieces of what you think of law enforcement.  I am proud that you have a J.D.  Now use the critical thinking skills that you should have learned when earning it.

Actually, I have never been factually incorrect, and have repeatedly asked you to quote where you believe I was. In response, you initially tried misinterpreting my posts to imply I was confused about the SAO's role vs. JSO's, when I clearly wasn't.

I then again asked you to show where I have said anything inaccurate. And again, you resort to double-talk and B.S. that doesn't answer my question. Either you can show where something I've said here is incorrect, or you can't. And it is clearly the latter.

You, on the other hand, have been wrong in virtually every ridiculous tinfoil-hat-wearing argument I've seen you propound on this site. My favorite is probably your stalwart defense of the Blackwater Corporation, which you argued incessantly hadn't done anything wrong. That was, until it came out they'd murdered civilians, lost their government contracts, had to change their name, and 15 of them got indicted. Not to mention, their founder/CEO mysteriously decided to relocate to a country with no extradition treaty once that happened.

So no offense, but you have absolutely, utterly, ZERO credibility. If someone else has a valid point and you agree with it, I am forced to question the point again. If anyone wants to see how credible you are here, simply refer back to your numerous previous debates, wherein you relied on the same type of 3rd-grade semantics and utter B.S. that you've been relying on in this thread, to keep your nonsensical arguments alive.

Why do you care so much about this topic, anyway? Are you a cop? Do you work for JSO?

There's clearly some bias here, as otherwise I don't see why you'd go through such mental gymnastics to stay in a debate you've already lost, especially when the whole point of the thread was initially about the memorial wall and outpouring of grief for Battles. It was never about whether the shooting was wrongful (though anyone with 2 brain cells knows it was) until Springfielder and you made it into that.

Springfielder already admitted he/she is a cop, so at least that's honesty, and it explains his/her bias in arguing that position. So now how about you? Cop? Work for JSO?