http://www.news4jax.com/news/25553794/detail.html
QuoteOfficers In Baymeadows Shooting Resign
Sheriff: 'It's By The Grace Of God That Little Daniel Is Still With Us'
POSTED: Thursday, October 28, 2010
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Two police officers who were recommended for discipline after shots fired at a fleeing bank robbery suspect struck a woman and her 2-year-old son have resigned.
Five Jacksonville sheriff's officers fired a total of 42 shots at a car that Jeremiah Mathis was trying to carjack. One bullet each hit Daniel Crichton and his mother, Joann Cooper, who police said was being carjacked by Mathis in his attempt to get away after robbing the nearby Wachovia bank.
Mathis died as a result of the shooting.
In July, a police review board that heard evidence and testimony about the March shooting and recommended that two of the officers -- Officer Ryan Black and recruit Darries Griffith -- receive additional training and a review by the internal affairs office.
USE OF FORCE BOARD'S RECCOMENDATIONS:
•Lt. Jesse York, 22 years experience, was off duty, but first at the scene. He approached with a shotgun and fired four times. The board said he made sound decisions, although he put himself in the line of fire/crossfire situation when he warned other officers to stop shooting because kids were in the car. Board recommended no further action.
•Officer Ryan Black, with 2½ years experience, fired 24 times. The board said they were concerned about firing with others, including York, in his line of fire. Black also shot at rolling car as it passed him, which is discouraged by department policy and shot into car not knowing the occupants. The board recommended additional training on tactics and communications and referred the case to internal affairs.
•Recruit Darries Griffith, one year with JSO but eight previous years of police experience, fired six times. The board was concerned because he fired toward the Wendy's restaurant with customers inside and fired at an occupied car. The board recommended further training and referred his case to internal affairs.
•Officer J.E. Lederman, with 13 years experience, fired four times. The board said he put himself in the crossfire to warn officers to stop shooting, which is not recommended. But they added that he showed good decision making in using deadly force and recommended no further action.
•Officer Richard Santoro, with 11 years experience, fired four time times. The board said his tactical decisions were thoughtful, he put himself in right place, stayed out of crossfire situations and his use of deadly force within his rights at the time. They recommended no further action.
On Thursday, Nelson Cuba, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, confirmed the two had resigned. At a news conference in the afternoon, Sheriff John Rutherford said the two officer chose to resign prior to his announcement of discipline.
"Yes, we took a very dangerous and armed criminal off the streets, but in doing so, these two officers violated our rules," Sheriff John Rutherford said. "If we do hold ourselves accountable for our wrong actions, we cannot maintain and build trust within this community."
Recruit Darries Griffith and Officer Ryan Black
Between them, Black and Griffith fired 30 of the 42 shots police fired at Mathis that day. Rutherford said the two officers did not use reasonable caution and their actions put other officers and the public at risk, violating the department's use-of-force policy.
Rutherford said he was prepared to fire the two officers.
"It's by the grace of God that little Daniel is still with us," Rutherford said.
During the police review, the highest ranking officer at the scene, Lt. Jesse York, testified that he ordered Mathis to surrender as he tried to get into the occupied car. York said Mathis, who was armed with a handgun, looked him in the eye and then ignored him.
"I yelled, 'I will shoot you,'" York told a use-of-force police review board Tuesday. "I indicated and yelled, 'I will shoot you. Show me your hands. I will shoot you.'"
He said Mathis continued to struggle with Cooper for control of her car with her two children inside in a Wendy's drive-through on Baymeadows Road.
"I could hear the carjacking victim screaming in terror. The suspect did not have control of the car," York added.
As he approached the vehicle, York said, he did not see Cooper's 2-year-old son, Daniel, in a car seat in the rear of the vehicle or her 7-year-old daughter, Alexis Cooper, in the passenger seat.
York said because he had heard Mathis threaten to kill Joann Cooper, he fired two rounds from his shotgun at Mathis, who was still trying to escape.
Mathis did not fall right away and four other officers also fired shots, the board was told. According to the investigative report into the shooting, at least some of the other officers who also went to the scene thought it was Mathis who shot at York.
York testified that when he realized children were in the car, he yelled at his fellow officers to cease fire because the gunman had hostages.
When the shooting stopped, investigators said York had fired four times, Officer Ryan Black had fired 24 times, Recruit Darries Griffith had fired six times, and officers J.E. Lederman and Officer Richard Santoro had fired four shots each.
Black, who has less than three years with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, emptied one clip of ammunition, reloaded and continued firing until he learned there were children in the car.
When one of the panelists told him the rounds that hit Daniel and his mother were possibly from his gun, he replied, "Yes, sir."
Nine weeks after he and his mother were hit by police gunfire, Daniel Crichton is recovering at home.
Lederman said he said he saw the children in the car, so he didn't fire at Mathis until he got close enough for a clean shot, then fired four times. He said he was the first to get to Daniel, who had a bullet in his chest.
"Daniel was bleeding badly," Lederman said. "I put my hand on his chest as a compress, and I made the decision to take Daniel out of the vehicle."
Daniel was initially in critical condition, but he and his mother are still recovering at home.
During the review, it came out that two shots fired by officers hit two vehicles passing on Baymeadows Road, but there were no other injuries.
After nearly four hours of review, the board voted to take no action against York, Lederman and Santoro, because they had followed departmental procedures. But the board recommended that Black and Griffith be sent to additional training in tactics and communications and referred their cases to internal affairs.
Serve and Protect? Somehow I don't think so.................matter of judgement and bad on both of their parts!
And a good example of the "spray and pray" school of marksmanship. 42 Shots!!!!
Dog Walker, I would be willing to bet money that neither had the benifit of Military Training! If they did, they did not rate "Expert" as I did.............there are some situations that deserve surgical precision and some that deserve the blanket approach...........this is a surgical operation and 42 rounds don't get it!
In all fairness, it's not about how many shots were fired, it's about firing when they should not have. They had a hostage situation, and should have contained the vehicle and called for a negotiator.
Quote from: Springfielder on October 31, 2010, 02:46:21 PM
In all fairness, it's not about how many shots were fired, it's about firing when they should not have. They had a hostage situation, and should have contained the vehicle and called for a negotiator.
Yeah.........I would agree Springfielder! Weapons should only be utilized when absolutely required! But the useage and the amounts fired are not good............indicates a severe lack of common sense and expertise!
Quote from: Springfielder on October 31, 2010, 02:46:21 PM
In all fairness, it's not about how many shots were fired, it's about firing when they should not have. They had a hostage situation, and should have contained the vehicle and called for a negotiator.
Have to agree with this, was a terrible decision. I know officers have to make split second decisions, but I think this one was very bad a lot of poor judgement
Mr. Foltz, are you a combat vet? Have any of the posters here ever been in a gunfight? I won't defend Black's actions, but containing violent offenders in an uncontrolled environment is very difficult and dangerous work. You can do everything to the best of your ability, and still fail miserably or be killed. It is impossible to plan out every situation. The judgement of individual Officers must be counted on and not every Officer will react the same way to every situation. Every Officer is an individual with varying experience, training, and skills. They are not robots. They come in all sizes, sexes, and colors with different sets of talents and skills. What they have in common is a lengthy training and evaluation rigor prior to going on the street and at least some experience in "Police intervention". While this does not ensure that they will always be right, it gives the best chance of it. Every Officer will tell you that they learn from experience and learn from mistakes. All pray that their actions are always honorable and have only good results.
I wish for a fast recovery for this woman and her child. I hope they find forgiveness in their hearts for the Officers who wished only to help them and apprehend the man that thought nothing of taking not only their vehicle but placing their lives in mortal danger.
Except for Military Police and a very few small units, military small arms training is not transferable to police work, just as Police Officers are not trained for combat arms on foreign soil in conjunction with armor and artillery.
I think the one officer was the main problem, the others seemed to have the drill down ok, firing when they had a clean shot, etc. but that one guy blasted almost 30 rounds into the car indiscriminately. And it can't just be instinct he actually had to stop and reload twice to keep blasting. Seems like JSO has a real issue with this kind of behavior, they're in the news all the time for it.
I guess what amazes me is the public outcry must finally be getting deafening, as this is the first time I've seen the internal review board actually do anything besides rubber stamp it.
If you do not know the sitrep you do not fire (esp in a public place) period. There is no excuse for this. The guy robbed a bank, he was not a mass murdered. Banks train employees that it is JUST money, give it and let it go. It is a sad world were money stolen from a bank is more important than the safety of the public, and excuses are made for firing 42 rounds into an occupied car. Bad decisions made by at least two of these officers, not evil men-but certainly not men I want patrolling my streets.
QuoteDuring the review, it came out that two shots fired by officers hit two vehicles passing on Baymeadows Road, but there were no other injuries.
Again, this is terrible judgement. I can't imagine what it's like to be in a shoot / don't shoot situation but these officers were trained and failed. Luckily no one was killed other than the thief.
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 31, 2010, 02:40:18 PM
Dog Walker, I would be willing to bet money that neither had the benifit of Military Training! If they did, they did not rate "Expert" as I did.............there are some situations that deserve surgical precision and some that deserve the blanket approach...........this is a surgical operation and 42 rounds don't get it!
CS, I don't think military firearms training transfers to police work very well. Military doesn't use pistols very much, but instead use the more accurate pistol caliber, bullpup style weapons. They are more accurate and easier to control, but you can't hang them on your belt.
That said, I don't think much of the level of training in pistol fire given to police officers. I don't think the institutions have caught up with the new realities on the street.
My father was a city councilman in Atlantic Beach when I was a kid and was a friend of the chief-of-police, Jack Russel. He and my dad went out to the city dump each week and practiced shooting. I learned to shoot from them. In all the years Russel was a policeman, he never had to draw his pistol while on duty.
Today I think the chances of a policeman having to draw his weapon while on duty are far higher than they were in those more peaceful days, but I'm not sure that the training requirements and opportunities have kept up with that reality. Many officers go far beyond their required training and spend their own money to do so.
I shoot a stock weapon in IPSC competitions and some of the most competitive people out there are officers using their service Glocks. On the other hand, the officers who come to the matches without training beyond what is required by their department to qualify are pitiful performers.
In my opinion the JSO should require and pay for more advanced pistol training than they seem to now especially for officers who are "on the street." To be sure, I am ignorant of the current training and requirements and my opinion is based only on what I have seen at matches and incidents such as the one on this thread where someone finds it necessary to fire 30 rounds.
There is sufficient training, both in firearms and police procedures, etc., however as it was stated before, you can have all the training humanly possible, but it's how that training helps each individual at any given circumstance. Not that I'm defending the officer(s) in this situation...but it's so easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback as if these officers are all robots and all respond/react exactly as trained or expected by the public.
Military firearms training is completely different than police training, and does not come into the equation. Now in this situation, proper police procedure/protocol does.
Not everyone is cut out to be an officer, it is a tough job, with a lot of power, responsibility, expectation, with minimal supervision (at some point). Cases such as this make that abundantly clear. Thank goodness there were officers with the experience, knowledge, and makeup to ensure this was not an even sadder story.
Dog Walker you do have a point! When I refer to military training, I am refering to putting the rounds into the X ring! I qualified expert in both pistol and rifle, but thats me. Military scenerio's are usually the more is better routine rather than a finese style. I would not use more than is required to do the job, but I was taught long before I was in the military and that training just fine tuned my responces. How could I put this......how about surgical rather than the carepet bomb approach! In a civilian situation, finese should be the way since you not trying to supress return fire............if that is going on then return the favor but that is a completely different scenerio!
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 31, 2010, 02:14:02 PM
Serve and Protect? Somehow I don't think so.................matter of judgement and bad on both of their parts!
Jacksonville is getting wild. These guys needed more training. Why send rookies to a situation like this. The mom has a case.
There's no doubt that the mom has a case. As for why rookies responded, they were doing their job. Again, you can have all the training humanly possible, but when it comes down to how one reacts, it's a pure guessing game. There's just no way to predict that, but the training is intended to help mentally and physically guide you.
Trust me, it's not just Jacksonville...
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 02, 2010, 07:41:16 AM
If you do not know the sitrep you do not fire (esp in a public place) period. There is no excuse for this. The guy robbed a bank, he was not a mass murdered. Banks train employees that it is JUST money, give it and let it go. It is a sad world were money stolen from a bank is more important than the safety of the public, and excuses are made for firing 42 rounds into an occupied car. Bad decisions made by at least two of these officers, not evil men-but certainly not men I want patrolling my streets.
I think its me, but whats up with the JSO hate from the uptowners on this forum? What happened?? This cop defenitely had an issue or agenda. Is Ryan BlAck a white cop?? Maybe one thats sick & tired of black criminals? The robber took a shot from a shot gun and kept trying to get the car. Does his situation matter? The rookie black cop only fired six times right? In a way I dont blame the Ryan Black dude, but the mother may try to get some money for this. So what now? People rob when they NEED money. Whats the real cause of the issue? lack of employment? Lack of police training? Some of the self proclaimed Superheros can answer these for me
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 02, 2010, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 02, 2010, 07:41:16 AM
If you do not know the sitrep you do not fire (esp in a public place) period. There is no excuse for this. The guy robbed a bank, he was not a mass murdered. Banks train employees that it is JUST money, give it and let it go. It is a sad world were money stolen from a bank is more important than the safety of the public, and excuses are made for firing 42 rounds into an occupied car. Bad decisions made by at least two of these officers, not evil men-but certainly not men I want patrolling my streets.
I think its me, but whats up with the JSO hate from the uptowners on this forum? What happened?? This cop defenitely had an issue or agenda. Is Ryan BlAck a white cop?? Maybe one thats sick & tired of black criminals? The robber took a shot from a shot gun and kept trying to get the car. Does his situation matter? The rookie black cop only fired six times right? In a way I dont blame the Ryan Black dude, but the mother may try to get some money for this. So what now? People rob when they NEED money. Whats the real cause of the issue? lack of employment? Lack of police training? Some of the self proclaimed Superheros can answer these for me
So if I don't think it's wonderful that JSO shot a 2 year old kid, that makes me a cop hater?
That's the kind of junk that comes from people responding to posts, of which they clearly didn't read. The thread isn't about uptowners, as the one poster calls those of us who have spoken up about the incident, it's about how police procedure was not really followed and/or bad judgment by a couple of officers involved, which resulted in the injury of innocent victims.
Being able to voice ones concern, and/or opposition to what appears to have been very poor judgment in the line of duty, does not make that person a cop hater...and that's a rather ignorant response to those of us who have voiced our concerns with the incident.
The mother of the child that was shot, most certainly has a very strong case against JSO, and will be awarded a financial settlement. The review board already came back with a negative response to 2 of the officers involved, and now they've resigned.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 04, 2010, 10:58:22 AM
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 02, 2010, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 02, 2010, 07:41:16 AM
If you do not know the sitrep you do not fire (esp in a public place) period. There is no excuse for this. The guy robbed a bank, he was not a mass murdered. Banks train employees that it is JUST money, give it and let it go. It is a sad world were money stolen from a bank is more important than the safety of the public, and excuses are made for firing 42 rounds into an occupied car. Bad decisions made by at least two of these officers, not evil men-but certainly not men I want patrolling my streets.
I think its me, but whats up with the JSO hate from the uptowners on this forum? What happened?? This cop defenitely had an issue or agenda. Is Ryan BlAck a white cop?? Maybe one thats sick & tired of black criminals? The robber took a shot from a shot gun and kept trying to get the car. Does his situation matter? The rookie black cop only fired six times right? In a way I dont blame the Ryan Black dude, but the mother may try to get some money for this. So what now? People rob when they NEED money. Whats the real cause of the issue? lack of employment? Lack of police training? Some of the self proclaimed Superheros can answer these for me
So if I don't think it's wonderful that JSO shot a 2 year old kid, that makes me a cop hater?
Well, you have actually posted that you do hate cops...
Quote from: NotNow on November 04, 2010, 03:54:41 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 04, 2010, 10:58:22 AM
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 02, 2010, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 02, 2010, 07:41:16 AM
If you do not know the sitrep you do not fire (esp in a public place) period. There is no excuse for this. The guy robbed a bank, he was not a mass murdered. Banks train employees that it is JUST money, give it and let it go. It is a sad world were money stolen from a bank is more important than the safety of the public, and excuses are made for firing 42 rounds into an occupied car. Bad decisions made by at least two of these officers, not evil men-but certainly not men I want patrolling my streets.
I think its me, but whats up with the JSO hate from the uptowners on this forum? What happened?? This cop defenitely had an issue or agenda. Is Ryan BlAck a white cop?? Maybe one thats sick & tired of black criminals? The robber took a shot from a shot gun and kept trying to get the car. Does his situation matter? The rookie black cop only fired six times right? In a way I dont blame the Ryan Black dude, but the mother may try to get some money for this. So what now? People rob when they NEED money. Whats the real cause of the issue? lack of employment? Lack of police training? Some of the self proclaimed Superheros can answer these for me
So if I don't think it's wonderful that JSO shot a 2 year old kid, that makes me a cop hater?
Well, you have actually posted that you do hate cops...
I would love to see you quote where I have ever said I hate police officers. Please find that for me.
Is this a new tactic, just making things up randomly when you don't otherwise have a point?
Why, you posted that in the Battles thread. You later removed it, but I remember. Your feelings towards law enforcement are quite clear in most of your posts here.
Remember, the truth ALWAYS comes out.
I certainly do not hate cops, it is a job I know very well I could not, nor would want to do. It takes a certain kind of person to do this job and I it is my opinion some of these officers do not have what it takes. Cars driving by on Baymeadows were hit? I may be crazy but I think officers are to protect law abiding citizens not have shoot outs with bank robbers hitting innocent bystanders (and/or their property in the process. It is clear at least two of these police officers did exactly as trained, and even gave a direct order of the same which was ignored.
Quote from: NotNow on November 04, 2010, 06:52:31 PM
Remember, the truth ALWAYS comes out.
I've found nearly universally that statements like that usually come from the ones with something to hide.
And again, I never said "I hate cops." You quite literally just made that up. Which is hardly anything new with you.
If anyone cares, this was my actual comment from the Kiko Battles thread on LEO's;
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 18, 2010, 05:39:36 PM
Well, believe it or not, sometimes I agree with the cops, and other times I think they're out of line.
That NotNow can somehow turn that statement into "I hate cops" should clearly indicate his total lack of credibility.
No, you said "I hate cops". You know it, I know it. And your credibility and mine does not rest on what we think or say. We have a history that most here have seen. I'll stand by what I have said, all you have to do is stand by what you have said.
Quote from: NotNow on November 04, 2010, 11:33:40 PM
No, you said "I hate cops". You know it, I know it. And your credibility and mine does not rest on what we think or say. We have a history that most here have seen. I'll stand by what I have said, all you have to do is stand by what you have said.
I never said that. You are misstating the truth, and I already quoted what I actually wrote for you in this thread. You'll note none of my posts have any edit stamps in the Battles thread. Again, this is all hardly shocking behavior from you. Certainly not the first time either.
And my credibility vs. yours speaks for itself. I may not have the most popular opinions on any given subject, but I take pride in ensuring that they are generally well reasoned, and I always stand by my words. Far more than can ever be said for you. I have yet to see you be correct or well reasoned on any given topic in all the years you've been cooking up steaming piles of horse manure on this site.
Quote from: stephendare on November 04, 2010, 11:50:02 PM
Chris, it is possible that Notnow is simply mistaken, and it does break our rules to call anyone a 'liar' on these forums. Please edit your post accordingly.
NotNow should play lotto more often, if he is able to so often be so conveniently mistaken and always in his favor.
That said I apologize for the TOS violation and edited my post.
Well, I was going to edit my post as well to eliminate the "liar" stuff, but mine was just deleted....hmm.
Chris, you are entitled to your opinion. Most of this discussion IS opinion. All of the political crap is mostly party line regurgitation. But when it comes to the facts, I verify what I say as well. You are entitled to your opinion of the Police, as well as the convenient excuse that StephenDare! uses as well..."I don't hate all Cops, I like some of them". You are entitled to your opinion of me, or any other poster here. Your name calling and virulent language is evidence of your willingness to leave facts behind. I'll leave this where it is.
Quote from: NotNow on November 05, 2010, 12:07:52 AM
Well, I was going to edit my post as well to eliminate the "liar" stuff, but mine was just deleted....hmm.
Well, my apologies for being uncivil to you.
I don't hate cops. Or even hate any particular cop. That's a very strong word. Some of them have attitude problems, which I find disappointing. But many cops take great pride in being professional, and I appreciate that. In short, just like any other given group of people.
And I think you derail your own interactions on this site to a great extent, because you paraphrase what you think the other person's gist is, and often you wind up coming out with these sweeping generalities that don't reflect what the other person actually meant. That immediately polarizes the conversation and ends any rational discussion, because now you're in an argument over that nonsense rather than discussing the actual point. It is uniquely infuriating, and I find myself in that position almost every time I talk with you on here. It gets frustrating.
Quote from: NotNow on November 05, 2010, 12:13:09 AM
Chris, you are entitled to your opinion. Most of this discussion IS opinion. All of the political crap is mostly party line regurgitation. But when it comes to the facts, I verify what I say as well. You are entitled to your opinion of the Police, as well as the convenient excuse that StephenDare! uses as well..."I don't hate all Cops, I like some of them". You are entitled to your opinion of me, or any other poster here. Your name calling and virulent language is evidence of your willingness to leave facts behind. I'll leave this where it is.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
You've convinced yourself I hate cops. That isn't what I said, and isn't how I feel. This isn't something where you can just say "we'll agree to disagree" because what you're doing is trying to dictate to me how I feel about something, and you're not even doing it accurately. That is a real problem. I've told you how I feel, pointed out that I never said the sweeping generality you have attributed to me and that I don't feel that way, and yet you continue trying to dictate my own feelings to me. This is really quite silly. I've already told you how I feel, who are you to argue with me? Especially when you're attributing these feelings and sweeping generalities that aren't accurate.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 05, 2010, 12:23:15 AM
And I think you derail your own interactions on this site to a great extent, because you paraphrase what you think the other person's gist is, and often you wind up coming out with these sweeping generalities that don't reflect what the other person actually meant. That immediately polarizes the conversation and ends any rational discussion, because now you're in an argument over that nonsense rather than discussing the actual point. It is uniquely infuriating, and I find myself in that position almost every time I talk with you on here. It gets frustrating.
It takes two. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Just sayin'.
As am I in this case, but making an off-topic point.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 05, 2010, 08:47:09 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 05, 2010, 12:23:15 AM
And I think you derail your own interactions on this site to a great extent, because you paraphrase what you think the other person's gist is, and often you wind up coming out with these sweeping generalities that don't reflect what the other person actually meant. That immediately polarizes the conversation and ends any rational discussion, because now you're in an argument over that nonsense rather than discussing the actual point. It is uniquely infuriating, and I find myself in that position almost every time I talk with you on here. It gets frustrating.
It takes two. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Just sayin'.
And since you weren't part of the solution, or even the discussion, what does that make you?
RedneckWestsider, you do realize that coming back and editing your own posts to act as though whoever responded to you didn't have a point doesn't work, right? Because my response was posted at 8:47am and this is the edit tag now attached to your post;
Quote« Last Edit: Today at 08:52:30 AM by Non-RedNeck Westsider »
Nice fail.