Metro Jacksonville

http://www.news4jax.com/news/26203064/detail.html

QuotePolice Officer Shoots At Man 8 Times
Police: Man Led Police On Chase, Refused To Stop

POSTED: Tuesday, December 21, 2010
UPDATED: 3:01 pm EST December 21, 2010

Police investigate an officer-involved shooting at the intersection of Lem Turner Road and Trout River Boulevard.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Jacksonville sheriff's officer shot at a man eight times overnight after he refused to pull over and then ran from police in Northwest Jacksonville, police said.

Police were called to Lem Turner Road and Trout River Boulevard early Tuesday morning because of the police-involved shooting that left the unidentified man hospitalized.

Jacksonville Sheriff''s Office Chief John Hartley said deputies tried to pull over a maroon Garnet Chevy Monte Carlo with license plate No. 449JLL for suspicious activity, but the vehicle fled, which started a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood.

The driver went through two homeowners' yards and then backed into a JSO cruiser, police said. The chase ended at the corner of Greenleaf Road and Doncaster Avenue, in the front yard of a home.

Video: Man Shot Running From Traffic Stop
The driver got out of the car and ran from officers. Officers yelled at him to stop, but he didn't, police said.

Officer A.J. Givens said he saw something metallic at the man's waistband as the man was reaching for that area, so police gave more commands for the man to stop. When he didn't stop, Givens fired eight times, Hartley said.

The man was shot in the lower back and was taken to Shands Jacksonville Medical Center in critical but stable condition. Police said they did not find a gun, but did find drugs on the man.

Police said the man was hit by the gunfire once. Hartley said the gun was fired numerous times because officers are trained to shoot until no longer threatened.

Givens, who has been with the Sheriff's Office for about four years, has been placed on paid administrative leave, as is standard procedure for any police-involved shooting.

Residents who were upset about the shooting were planning a protest in the Sherwood neighborhood Tuesday afternoon.

So the guy was unarmed and running away, that clearly calls for shooting him in the back 8 times?

Moral of the story: If you have done nothing wrong and are stopped by the police, stop and accept any citation they are offering, don't start a car chase, back into one of the police cars and then run from your vehicle, expecting to out run the officer.  I'm sorry, but if you do, you're asking for whatever they do to you.  Police officers are put into to many bad situations and are expected to offer their life first prior to the suspicious thugs they are trying to take off the street.

He was shot in the back one time.

Two more people shot in NW JACKSONVILLE just minutes ago... Police on the scene with fire, but no word yet on who shot who...Looks like some children involved in some way but victims? Don't know yet.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Live_Oak on December 21, 2010, 05:00:51 PM
He was shot in the back one time.

So you're saying it's his fault the cop's 7 other shots missed?

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 21, 2010, 04:59:49 PM
Moral of the story: If you have done nothing wrong and are stopped by the police, stop and accept any citation they are offering, don't start a car chase, back into one of the police cars and then run from your vehicle, expecting to out run the officer.  I'm sorry, but if you do, you're asking for whatever they do to you.  Police officers are put into to many bad situations and are expected to offer their life first prior to the suspicious thugs they are trying to take off the street.

+1

This sounds like 13 other threads just like it. I am as a rule VERY critical regarding JSO and local incidents..I have a LONG memory.

Simple Jacksonville Florida fact is, you cannot run,flee,or hide from a Cop after you have attracted their attention and they have commanded you to do something.

Fight or Flight is not an option when being Policed. Both decisions will end badly.

"I was scared!" no longer works as an excuse. You just have to freeze and get a Lawyer.

If you choose to run or flee you are also making a decision to become a "Fugitive" run up on our local Media with your latest Mug Shot.

Lastly,I guess if you are such scum that you cant even be identified by your neighbors.(Or they are silent) then go for it and take a chance.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 21, 2010, 04:59:49 PM
Moral of the story: If you have done nothing wrong and are stopped by the police, stop and accept any citation they are offering, don't start a car chase, back into one of the police cars and then run from your vehicle, expecting to out run the officer.  I'm sorry, but if you do, you're asking for whatever they do to you.  Police officers are put into to many bad situations and are expected to offer their life first prior to the suspicious thugs they are trying to take off the street.

Connect the dots....

This guy deserved to die yes?

Quote from: JC on December 21, 2010, 09:02:35 PM
Connect the dots....

This guy deserved to die yes?

You do know that "fighting words," are a legal defense in JACKSONVILLE right? As in "That their feller just needed killin'"

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 21, 2010, 09:23:06 PM

Quote from: JC on December 21, 2010, 09:02:35 PM
Connect the dots....

This guy deserved to die yes?

You do know that "fighting words," are a legal defense in JACKSONVILLE right? As in "That their feller just needed killin'"

OCKLAWAHA

You are correct..

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 21, 2010, 04:59:49 PM
Moral of the story: If you have done nothing wrong and are stopped by the police, stop and accept any citation they are offering, don't start a car chase, back into one of the police cars and then run from your vehicle, expecting to out run the officer.  I'm sorry, but if you do, you're asking for whatever they do to you.  Police officers are put into to many bad situations and are expected to offer their life first prior to the suspicious thugs they are trying to take off the street.

So what happened to just issuing an arrest warrant? What necessitates shooting an unarmed man in the back?

Not defending the shooting, but whose name would be on that arrest warrant?  Don't think they had a positive ID until they apprehended him.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 21, 2010, 10:23:33 PM
Not defending the shooting, but whose name would be on that arrest warrant?  Don't think they had a positive ID until they apprehended him.

So what about that justifies shooting an unarmed man in the back 8 times?

And FWIW they had his description and his vehicle, and therefore his fingerprints. So is it just easier to kill him than to do any actual police work nowadays? God forbid you have to spend 5 minutes running his prints in the computer and issuing a warrant. Save time, just kill him.

Unless the man was shouting his name and address as he ran away from the Officer, how would JSO know his identity to issue this warrant?

Chris, the suspect is not dead. See updated news story.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/26203064/detail.html

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:27:35 PM
Unless the man was shouting his name and address as he ran away from the Officer, how would JSO know his identity to issue this warrant?

So identifying someone is so important that it justifies shooting an unarmed man in the back simply because he doesn't obey an order? For what it's worth, they knew his description, and had his car, and no doubt his fingerprints were in it. Identifying him wouldn't have been difficult through the vehicle registration or through fingerprints in the vehicle.

But who wants to spend a couple minutes doing actual police work, it's easier to just kill him apparently...

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:31:47 PM
Chris, the suspect is not dead. See updated news story.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/26203064/detail.html

He's not dead only because the officer was such a bad shot that most of the 8 rounds he fired at the guy's back missed. So I'll ask this again, are you saying it's the citizen's fault the officer missed?

Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping. 

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect. 

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:46:23 PM
Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping.  

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect.  

Yes this surely would be the first time ever that a cop who shot someone later claimed they thought he had a gun. And I don't buy the split second excuse, if you can't make reasonable decisions in the field without shooting unarmed people in the back, then we'd all be better off if they find another job.

And WTF are you talking about with firing live rounds as "warning shots" in the middle of a residential neighborhood?

Seriously? Are you nuts?

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:46:23 PM
Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping. 

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect. 

AND IT IS THE PUBLIC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCRUTINIZE THE INDIVIDUALS WE ENTRUST WITH THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF POLICING THE PUBLIC!  

JUST IMAGINE THIS IS YOUR FATHER, SON, GRANDFATHER OR SOME OTHER PERSON CLOSE TO YOU AND THEN DECIDE IF THIS WAS A GOOD OR JUSTIFIED SHOOTING!

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 21, 2010, 10:51:04 PM

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:46:23 PM
Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping.  

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect.  

Yes this surely would be the first time ever that a cop who shot someone later claimed they thought he had a gun. And I don't buy the split second excuse, if you can't make reasonable decisions in the field without shooting unarmed peole in the back, then we'd all be better off if they find another job.

Yes and everyday there are officers who make the correct decision. 

Quote from: JC on December 21, 2010, 10:52:27 PM
AND IT IS THE PUBLIC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCRUTINIZE THE INDIVIDUALS WE ENTRUST WITH THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF POLICING THE PUBLIC!  

JUST IMAGINE THIS IS YOUR FATHER, SON, GRANDFATHER OR SOME OTHER PERSON CLOSE TO YOU AND THEN DECIDE IF THIS WAS A GOOD OR JUSTIFIED SHOOTING!

It's a good thing that JSO takes the opportunity to immediately, without question, put the Office on Administrative leave pending investigation.  I think that helps the whole scrutinizing aspect.  

I can speak for my family that have been pulled over, arrested, incarcerated, etc.  None of them fled.  

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 11:01:12 PM

Quote from: JC on December 21, 2010, 10:52:27 PM
AND IT IS THE PUBLIC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCRUTINIZE THE INDIVIDUALS WE ENTRUST WITH THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF POLICING THE PUBLIC!  

JUST IMAGINE THIS IS YOUR FATHER, SON, GRANDFATHER OR SOME OTHER PERSON CLOSE TO YOU AND THEN DECIDE IF THIS WAS A GOOD OR JUSTIFIED SHOOTING!

It's a good thing that JSO takes the opportunity to immediately, without question, put the Office on Administrative leave pending investigation.  I think that helps the whole scrutinizing aspect.  

I can speak for my family that have been pulled over, arrested, incarcerated, etc.  None of them fled.  

Take it a step further... Would you stand over the grave of your family member and say to the rest of your grieving family... 'dad shouldnt have run, its his fault he was shot.'

JC, you don't know my family.  We were all raised with an exceptionally high "personal responsibility" index and penchant for talking negatively about people when they are standing right there, so, in my family...yeah, that's really possible.

He was shot once in the back. Not eight times. Why is this still being mis-stated?

And it's not "personal responsibility" if I have to worry about everyone else, now is it?  What THAT is, is civic duty to elect a Sheriff that will hold their staff to high standards.

Quote from: stephendare on December 21, 2010, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:46:23 PM
Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping.  

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect.  

So, driving without headlights on?

Well that does sound positively dangerous.  Almost like a maniac.

The high speed chase started when the officer was turning around to stop the car without headlights - had they stopped then, none of this would have happened.  The driver made several bad decisions, including running from the cops after they wrecked their car, and ramming the police car.  Decisions have consequences.  Sometimes they aren't so great.

This discussion is going the way many of these do - focusing on the last few seconds ("he was running, and the cop shot him" as if he was training for the track team); and not on what led up to that split second.

That said, the officer should have let the guy go, and sought a warrant as Chris suggested; but have been ready to shoot if the guy did produce a gun.  (can the officer use his Admin Leave to go to the firing range?)

QuoteSo what about that justifies shooting an unarmed man in the back 8 times?

SHOT AT 8 TIMES, not SHOT 8 TIMES. Heck if he'd been shot 8 times, he'd be a corpse with the 40 caliber shot in the Glock 9s that the JSO carry.

Just wonder where those other 6 shots went off into that residential neighborhood.

Quote from: stephendare on December 21, 2010, 11:26:03 PM
We all have personal responsibility not to harm a common property.  We have that right in common.  Making excuses for why its ok to shoot a man in the back for running harms that right.

What common property was being harmed?  Sorry, Stephen...you lost me.

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 11:11:30 PM
JC, you don't know my family.  We were all raised with an exceptionally high "personal responsibility" index and penchant for talking negatively about people when they are standing right there, so, in my family...yeah, that's really possible.

Why dont you quit the sarcasm and answer the question?  Why dont you put yourself in this persons shoes, or in the shoes of the family members who get to nurse their shot up loved one?  Why dont you stop blaming the victim?  Maybe you could put this into some historical context and realize that many African Americans are rightfully deeply suspicious of the police and maybe thats why the VICTIM ran?  

Sorry, JC.  Let me rephrase that without the sarcasm.

JC, you don't know my family.  We were all raised with an exceptionally high "personal responsibility" index and penchant for talking negatively about people when they are standing right there, so, in my family...yeah, that's really possible. Call my aunt and ask her about her cop-murdering son.  You'll get the waterworks and her bitterness at his poor decision-making.  I would say talk to my Grandma who, up to and including the day of my Grandfather's funeral, was cursing him for being a drunk and dying of liver failure...

I am acutely aware of the historical context, but thank you for reminding me about the history of racism in law enforcement.  I am also acutely aware that there are many more African American individuals who CHOOSE not to run.  But, no, let us NOT consider, perhaps, it was the fact that he was in possession of cocaine and marijuana that led him to run.  Let us NOT consider, that this individual who had been driving recklessly, put a neighborhood in harms way by driving through people's lawns, rammed a police cruiser and then wrecked his own car, might have a weapon stashed in his waistband (a common place those are stored) as the officer saw something metallic.

I am not justifying 7 shots that went who knows where.  If an Officer fires a warning shot and you continue to run...that is YOUR poor decision making.

No, I personally think most drug laws should be taken off the table.  But, he wasn't shot at for drugs.  He was shot at because the Officer thought he saw a gun in his waistband after the suspect reached in...

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 22, 2010, 12:00:28 AM
No, I personally think most drug laws should be taken off the table.  But, he wasn't shot at for drugs.  He was shot at because the Officer thought he saw a gun in his waistband after the suspect reached in...

Nothing short of this human being threatening the mortality of that officer justifies shooting him in the back once. We are talking about a flawed person here, someone just like the rest of us who made a bad decision, who reacted on instinct possibly, who maybe was afraid of being busted with some drugs or maybe he hadnt paid his child support for years, maybe he had a suspended license.... Who gives a shit why he did what he did, the end result was a bad shooting and a bunch of self righteous individuals who are so insulated from their fellow man that it results in their forgetting we are talking about a human life!

Quote from: stephendare on December 21, 2010, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:46:23 PM
Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping.  

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect.  

So, driving without headlights on?

Well that does sound positively dangerous.  Almost like a maniac.

No, but taking cops on a high speed pursuit through a neighborhood, careening through people's yard and then ramming into a cop car sure does.

That said, they probably shouldn't have shot him.  No one knows (or most likely will ever know) exactly what happened out there.  Unfortunate either way. 

Quote from: acme54321 on December 22, 2010, 06:57:55 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 21, 2010, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:46:23 PM
Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping.  

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect.  

So, driving without headlights on?

Well that does sound positively dangerous.  Almost like a maniac.

No, but taking cops on a high speed pursuit through a neighborhood, careening through people's yard and then ramming into a cop car sure does.

That said, they probably shouldn't have shot him.  No one knows (or most likely will ever know) exactly what happened out there.  Unfortunate either way. 

Actually, driving without headlights at 2:30 in the morning is dangerous and suspicious.

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 11:20:18 PM
He was shot once in the back. Not eight times. Why is this still being mis-stated?

And it's not "personal responsibility" if I have to worry about everyone else, now is it?  What THAT is, is civic duty to elect a Sheriff that will hold their staff to high standards.

The officer tried to shoot him in the back 8 times. However he was such a bad shot that several missed.

So let me ask you again, is it the unarmed man's fault the cop missed? How does that change the cops actions?

Quote from: Live_Oak on December 22, 2010, 08:58:10 AM

Quote from: acme54321 on December 22, 2010, 06:57:55 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 21, 2010, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:46:23 PM
Henley is responsible for:

Driving without headlights on, fleeing the scene, starting a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood, driving at speeds of more than 70 mph and ignoring stop signs, driving through two homeowners' yards, backing into a JSO cruiser, crashing into a storm drain, getting out of the car, running from officers THEN reaching for something metallic at his waistband, and STILL not stopping.  

All cops are asked to make split second decisions that you and I aren't.  In this instance, given the suspects behavior, it was reasonable that after putting a neighborhood in danger, then possibly being armed, the suspect was shot.  Let me call my uncle and ask him if he ever uses "warning" shots before actually firing at the suspect.  

So, driving without headlights on?

Well that does sound positively dangerous.  Almost like a maniac.

No, but taking cops on a high speed pursuit through a neighborhood, careening through people's yard and then ramming into a cop car sure does.

That said, they probably shouldn't have shot him.  No one knows (or most likely will ever know) exactly what happened out there.  Unfortunate either way.  

Actually, driving without headlights at 2:30 in the morning is dangerous and suspicious.

Yes, so suspicious it clearly warranted an automatic death sentence?

And more dangerous than shooting unarmed people in the back?

Or more dangerous than letting 6-7 stray rounds fly through a residential neighborhood?

Am I the only one who recognizes that the real threat to public safety in this situation was JSO? This is egregious.

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 11:56:16 PM
Sorry, JC.  Let me rephrase that without the sarcasm.

JC, you don't know my family.  We were all raised with an exceptionally high "personal responsibility" index and penchant for talking negatively about people when they are standing right there, so, in my family...yeah, that's really possible. Call my aunt and ask her about her cop-murdering son.  You'll get the waterworks and her bitterness at his poor decision-making.  I would say talk to my Grandma who, up to and including the day of my Grandfather's funeral, was cursing him for being a drunk and dying of liver failure...

I am acutely aware of the historical context, but thank you for reminding me about the history of racism in law enforcement.  I am also acutely aware that there are many more African American individuals who CHOOSE not to run.  But, no, let us NOT consider, perhaps, it was the fact that he was in possession of cocaine and marijuana that led him to run.  Let us NOT consider, that this individual who had been driving recklessly, put a neighborhood in harms way by driving through people's lawns, rammed a police cruiser and then wrecked his own car, might have a weapon stashed in his waistband (a common place those are stored) as the officer saw something metallic.

I am not justifying 7 shots that went who knows where.  If an Officer fires a warning shot and you continue to run...that is YOUR poor decision making.

First off, now that you've provided some details, it doesn't sound like your family actually stressed real personal responsibility, it sounds like they only stressed the part about everyone else around them being responsible for everything bad that happened. Your aunt ranting about your nephew's decision to shoot someone is just a method for shirking her personal responsibility for raising a child without sound decision making ability and a sound moral code. That's shirking personal responsibility, not accepting it.

Your grandmother kvetching about your grandfather being a drunk is another great example, its just a way to avoid accepting the fact that there was probably something she should have done to help him get treatment and to stop enabling his alcoholism, be that the baker act or just plain moving out to avoid enabling someone's self destruction. She chose not to. That would be actual personal responsibility. What you are describing is actually a family that blames others for everything, and accepts zero personal responsibility for anything. If you think those were examples of personal responsibility, you do not understand the concept.

And secondly, you keep going on about 'warning shots.' Are you nuts?

Since when is it OK to fire live 'warning' rounds into a  residential neighborhood?

While I am holding judgement until or if the whole story comes out, I must say drug dealers are bad for any neighborhood, if you live a life of crime it is going to turn out bad in the end for you. As a mother of a small child in the Urban Core, I hear of little kids being asked to sell or carry drugs. I know children without parents,living with their grandmothers because their parents are dead, addicted, or in jail due to drugs , a very merry Christmas for them.  I have no pity for drug dealers, I have seen the destruction of lives they are active participants in.

Where is the outrage for the drug dealers that shot an innocent mother a month ago? If they were not on the street would her children now be getting ready to celebrate Christmas with their mother? What about the 15 yr old hit by a fleeing drug dealer two years ago? Another one driving wildly in a neighborhood, killing a child on the sidewalk. Back then everyone screamed why the cops couldn't do more, some even asked why that dealer was not shot, afterall a car is considered a deadly weapon.

Personally I am sick of people whining all the time about bad doods ( he was always such a good boy) getting shot when the do bad stuff, and also whining at the cops when those same bad doods shoot innocent children sleeping in their beds. Thank goodness I am not a cop, it is a thankless no-win position.

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 10:03:59 AM
While I am holding judgement until or if the whole story comes out, I must say drug dealers are bad for any neighborhood, if you live a life of crime it is going to turn out bad in the end for you. As a mother of a small child in the Urban Core, I hear of little kids being asked to sell or carry drugs. I know children without parents,living with their grandmothers because their parents are dead, addicted, or in jail due to drugs , a very merry Christmas for them.  I have no pity for drug dealers, I have seen the destruction of lives they are active participants in.

Where is the outrage for the drug dealers that shot an innocent mother a month ago? If they were not on the street would her children now be getting ready to celebrate Christmas with their mother? What about the 15 yr old hit by a fleeing drug dealer two years ago? Another one driving wildly in a neighborhood, killing a child on the sidewalk. Back then everyone screamed why the cops couldn't do more, some even asked why that dealer was not shot, afterall a car is considered a deadly weapon.

Personally I am sick of people whining all the time about bad doods ( he was always such a good boy) getting shot when the do bad stuff, and also whining at the cops when those same bad doods shoot innocent children sleeping in their beds. Thank goodness I am not a cop, it is a thankless no-win position.

Well since you've just lectured us on taking 'the whole story' into account, perhaps you'd care to provide a link or direct me to any portion of the news coverage that says this unarmed man was a drug dealer?

Or like sinjouflue's concept of personal responsibility, did your admonishment not apply to yourself?

Touche Chris.

I assumed if you are out at 2AM driving around with your lights off, fleeing in an automobile that is now considered a deadly weapon, crashing into stuff and fleeing on foot from police, found with drugs on you..... you are most likely a dealer. I am doubtful he was getting ready for church early, but I could most certainly be guilty of bad assumptions and should hold judgement until I know more. BUT, even if he was on his way to church (with drugs in his pocket), he became a risk to the public as soon as he ran from the police. I gave a very specific example of a young boy killed under very similar circumstances here in our neighborhood. A good boy, a good son, a good student, and loved dearly by his parents. Dead  because of one idiot running from the cops.  If this man had hit anyone while fleeing we would most likley not be having this debate, luckily it was 2AM and not 2PM.

(BTW I totally agreed that the incident in the Burger King Drive through was outrageous, I think this is a different situation that's all).

QuoteWhile I am holding judgement until or if the whole story comes out

Most reasonable people are doing exactly that.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-12-21/story/family-disputes-jacksonville-police-shooting

This article says that the metallic object turned out to be scales used to weigh drugs.  And he's been arrested before on cocaine trafficking charges. 

You honestly think this guy wasn't a drug dealer?

To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

By my count... 13 people have posted on this subject to this point.  Seems to me like most people are withholding their judgement and opinions until more facts emerge and the investigation of the incident is completed.  Seems the prudent thing to do...

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 10:22:13 AM
Touche Chris.

I assumed if you are out at 2AM driving around with your lights off, fleeing in an automobile that is now considered a deadly weapon, crashing into stuff and fleeing on foot from police, found with drugs on you..... you are most likely a dealer. I am doubtful he was getting ready for church early, but I could most certainly be guilty of bad assumptions and should hold judgement until I know more. BUT, even if he was on his way to church (with drugs in his pocket), he became a risk to the public as soon as he ran from the police. I gave a very specific example of a young boy killed under very similar circumstances here in our neighborhood. A good boy, a good son, a good student, and loved dearly by his parents. Dead  because of one idiot running from the cops.  If this man had hit anyone while fleeing we would most likley not be having this debate, luckily it was 2AM and not 2PM.

(BTW I totally agreed that the incident in the Burger King Drive through was outrageous, I think this is a different situation that's all).

I just felt I had to point out that "found with drugs" usually just means he had a dime bag on him or something. If he was a really some dealer with a kilo of coke in the trunk, then you can be sure JSO would have wasted no time putting that in their press release since it would mitigate the public relations problem they have now that they shot an unarmed guy in the back.

And FWIW, I have forgotten to turn on my headlights at night many times, a lot of people do that. Eventually someone flashes you and you remember to turn them on. That's not a capital offense. This is so common that most of the newer cars are coming with automatic headlights for exactly this reason. That doesn't make you a bad person. This guy just panicked and ran for whatever reason, it certainly wasn't a wise decision, and he should be (and will be) rightfully charged with fleeing and eluding, which is a felony. But none of that justifies JSO's shooting an unarmed man in the back, or sending multiple live rounds through a residential neighborhood.

The cop already had his description, his license plate, hell at the end they had his whole vehicle, it's not like they couldn't have just issued a warrant and picked him up later. The problem is some of these guys want to play Billy Badass and letting someone disobey them is a more offensive proposition than shooting unarmed people in the back and discharging multiple live rounds in a residential neighborhood. This was terrible decision making, and the threat to public safety in this incident was actually the conduct of JSO. That is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

Quote from: Live_Oak on December 22, 2010, 10:55:06 AM
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-12-21/story/family-disputes-jacksonville-police-shooting

This article says that the metallic object turned out to be scales used to weigh drugs.  And he's been arrested before on cocaine trafficking charges.  

You honestly think this guy wasn't a drug dealer?

Well ok you got me there I hadn't seen that article yet. So he was indeed a drug dealer.

But it's worth noting that the article you linked to directly contradicts your point. It turns out the scale was the 'metallic object' the officer saw, so I'm following the story up to that point and JSO's actions up to then certainly seem reasonable. But it totally goes off the rails when you keep reading, and the article in repeating what JSO told the paper says that he had already thrown the scale out on the ground and was running away, and then JSO shot him in the back. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. He'd already ditched the scale the officer claimed was a gun and was running away. What possible justification for the use of deadly force does that scenario present?

Quote from: north miami on December 22, 2010, 10:55:57 AM
To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running away.

Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 10:22:13 AM
Touche Chris.

I assumed if you are out at 2AM driving around with your lights off, fleeing in an automobile that is now considered a deadly weapon, crashing into stuff and fleeing on foot from police, found with drugs on you..... you are most likely a dealer. I am doubtful he was getting ready for church early, but I could most certainly be guilty of bad assumptions and should hold judgement until I know more. BUT, even if he was on his way to church (with drugs in his pocket), he became a risk to the public as soon as he ran from the police. I gave a very specific example of a young boy killed under very similar circumstances here in our neighborhood. A good boy, a good son, a good student, and loved dearly by his parents. Dead  because of one idiot running from the cops.  If this man had hit anyone while fleeing we would most likley not be having this debate, luckily it was 2AM and not 2PM.

(BTW I totally agreed that the incident in the Burger King Drive through was outrageous, I think this is a different situation that's all).

My apologies, you were right. Someone posted a new link, he was indeed a drug dealer.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 11:20:22 AM

Quote from: north miami on December 22, 2010, 10:55:57 AM
To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running awa



Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

Yes.
Suspect drove vehicle to a stop-JSO vehicle right behind him.
Suspect exited vehicle and proceeded away-note- a gun in hand was evident.

Quote from: north miami on December 22, 2010, 11:53:02 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 11:20:22 AM

Quote from: north miami on December 22, 2010, 10:55:57 AM
To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running awa



Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

Yes.
Suspect drove vehicle to a stop-JSO vehicle right behind him.
Suspect exited vehicle and proceeded away-note- a gun in hand was evident.

So that guy at Lamb's was armed with a gun? Doesn't that kind of change things then?

If this guy had actually been armed then I don't think anyone would have a problem with the shooting. The whole problem is that they shot an unarmed man who was running away in the back. You have to have justification for the use of deadly force, and it just doesn't seem like this situation warranted that. And speaking generally, JSO seems to be misinterpreting the standard for justification as whether the officer feels threatened, not objectively whether there was actually any threat. There have been dozens of recent incidents that highlighted this ongoing perversion of the standard for use of deadly force, and I admit I have an issue with how that seems to be being handled.

I'm not weighing in one way or the other, however, the story did say that the officer saw what he presumed as something metallic in the guys waistband and that he shot when that person appeared to be reaching for it. That was his justification for using deadly force. Obviously, later, when he and the area was searched, there was no gun, but that does not alter what the officer presumed at the time he made the decision to discharge his weapon.

When situations such as this stem from multiple violations of the law and civil order, and when someone believes they see a weapon, that is often enough justification for the use of deadly force.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 12:14:39 PM

Quote from: north miami on December 22, 2010, 11:53:02 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 11:20:22 AM

Quote from: north miami on December 22, 2010, 10:55:57 AM
To shoot 'in the back' elicits all sorts of images and assumption of unfair.

Last year I was up front and personal close witness to JSO shooting at Lambs Yacht Center.

Four JSO shots...in the back.And quite justified.And all on film.

So yes- inclination to reserve judgement.

You're misstating the facts. He was shot in the back while running awa



Was whoever got shot at Lamb's running away when shot in the back?

Yes.
Suspect drove vehicle to a stop-JSO vehicle right behind him.
Suspect exited vehicle and proceeded away-note- a gun in hand was evident.

So that guy at Lamb's was armed with a gun? Doesn't that kind of change things then?

If this guy had actually been armed then I don't think anyone would have a problem with the shooting. The whole problem is that they shot an unarmed man who was running away in the back. You have to have justification for the use of deadly force, and it just doesn't seem like this situation warranted that. And speaking generally, JSO seems to be misinterpreting the standard for justification as whether the officer feels threatened, not objectively whether there was actually any threat. There have been dozens of recent incidents that highlighted this ongoing perversion of the standard for use of deadly force, and I admit I have an issue with how that seems to be being handled.

Dozens?  This is the 7th police involved shooting in 2010.  Down from 15 in 2009 and 28 in 2008.

So by your own count 50 police shootings in the past 3 years and you're objecting to the use of the word 'dozens'?

The past 3 years is recent?

And you didn't mention 2007, when we had more police shootings than Tampa, Orlando, and Miami...COMBINED;

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/040608/met_265507044.shtml

Quote from: Live_Oak on December 22, 2010, 01:12:07 PM
The past 3 years is recent?

I certainly think looking at what occurred in the past 36 months qualifies as recent.

What's your definition of 'recent'? The past hour and a half? Only include shootings that happen on Tuesdays? Lol

Quote from: Springfielder on December 22, 2010, 01:02:52 PM
I'm not weighing in one way or the other, however, the story did say that the officer saw what he presumed as something metallic in the guys waistband and that he shot when that person appeared to be reaching for it. That was his justification for using deadly force. Obviously, later, when he and the area was searched, there was no gun, but that does not alter what the officer presumed at the time he made the decision to discharge his weapon.

When situations such as this stem from multiple violations of the law and civil order, and when someone believes they see a weapon, that is often enough justification for the use of deadly force.

Thank you for the explanation, I honestly appreciate it. I have a general understanding of it, but am not well versed in this, I appreciate your taking the time to explain the standard. So it sounds like the officer did have justification initially, I guess my only question would be whether justification is something that can be extinguished if the weapon / presumed weapon is discarded? Or is it one of those things where once you have it you have it?

A. He only got shot once

B. What were they supposed to do? They dude started a chase, backed into the cops car and took off running. He could have been DANGEROUS. Were they supposed to just let him go? What if he was armed and broke into someones house and took them hostage? They had no choice but to fire. In this situation that was truly a last resort. He was asked to stop and didn't point blank!

C. This guy is a f@#king idiot. He had no weapons or drugs on him, but he yet he was fleeing. Maybe he had a warrant? But come on even if he did, he just made the situation worse. IMO, its the guys fault for being such a jack ass.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 01:31:36 PM
A. He only got shot once

B. What were they supposed to do? They dude started a chase, backed into the cops car and took off running. He could have been DANGEROUS. Were they supposed to just let him go? What if he was armed and broke into someones house and took them hostage? They had no choice but to fire. In this situation that was truly a last resort. He was asked to stop and didn't point blank!

C. This guy is a f@#king idiot. He had no weapons or drugs on him, but he yet he was fleeing. Maybe he had a warrant? But come on even if he did, he just made the situation worse. IMO, its the guys fault for being such a jack ass.

Your points A and B highlight the problem.

They shot at him 8 times, 7 live rounds missed. This occurred in a residential neighborhood. What's more dangerous, an unarmed man running away, or firing 7 live rounds into a residential neighborhood?

A good friend of mine is a detective and we talk about these stories all the time. He has told me about the almost constant training for shoot / don't shoot situations. They're shown videos on a regular basis of footage caught on police dash cams where an officer hesitated and paid the price of his life.

It seems ingrained in each officer to fire in situations just like these. As my buddy says it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 01:47:47 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 01:31:36 PM
A. He only got shot once

B. What were they supposed to do? They dude started a chase, backed into the cops car and took off running. He could have been DANGEROUS. Were they supposed to just let him go? What if he was armed and broke into someones house and took them hostage? They had no choice but to fire. In this situation that was truly a last resort. He was asked to stop and didn't point blank!

C. This guy is a f@#king idiot. He had no weapons or drugs on him, but he yet he was fleeing. Maybe he had a warrant? But come on even if he did, he just made the situation worse. IMO, its the guys fault for being such a jack ass.

Your points A and B highlight the problem.

They shot at him 8 times, 7 live rounds missed. This occurred in a residential neighborhood. What's more dangerous, an unarmed man running away, or firing 7 live rounds into a residential neighborhood?

That is the point. It is a two fold situation. Shoot or let him run away and possibly harm someone. They had no idea what he was capable of.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:15:53 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 01:47:47 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 01:31:36 PM
A. He only got shot once

B. What were they supposed to do? They dude started a chase, backed into the cops car and took off running. He could have been DANGEROUS. Were they supposed to just let him go? What if he was armed and broke into someones house and took them hostage? They had no choice but to fire. In this situation that was truly a last resort. He was asked to stop and didn't point blank!

C. This guy is a f@#king idiot. He had no weapons or drugs on him, but he yet he was fleeing. Maybe he had a warrant? But come on even if he did, he just made the situation worse. IMO, its the guys fault for being such a jack ass.

Your points A and B highlight the problem.

They shot at him 8 times, 7 live rounds missed. This occurred in a residential neighborhood. What's more dangerous, an unarmed man running away, or firing 7 live rounds into a residential neighborhood?

That is the point. It is a two fold situation. Shoot or let him run away and possibly harm someone. They had no idea what he was capable of.

You're evading the point.

The cops fired 7 live rounds into a residential neighborhood. JSO itself was the greater threat to public safety.

^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Hey Stephen, we are all entitled to our opinon, and this time my just so happens to be the minority. LOL

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:26:28 PM
^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Stephen what do you mean by class?

Quote from: stephendare on December 22, 2010, 02:45:32 PM

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Stephen what do you mean by class?

The Law Enforcement Class.  They have different rights than the rest of us, and operate with different laws.

So I personally know this first hand, and this is absolutely 100% true. Although, I am not sure how it applies to this instance :-)

Quote from: stephendare on December 22, 2010, 02:46:11 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:35:57 PM
Hey Stephen, we are all entitled to our opinon, and this time my just so happens to be the minority. LOL

Absolutely.  Not disagreeing with the person, just the opinion! :)

;)

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:26:28 PM
^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios, so what are you saying? Really???

Ok folk. Let's do it this way. What do you think they should have done? Everyone says what theyve done wrong, but nobody have has said what would have been the better way. Let me know where yall are coming from. Personally Im looking at it from all prespectives as far as what JSO did, versus what could have happen if they didnt.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/crimestoppers/news-article.aspx?storyid=183000&catid=69

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:59:55 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:26:28 PM
^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios.

No "what if's" involved in my analysis at all, unless you're arguing that 7 stray bullets flying through a residential neighborhood isn't a dangerous situation? Because that is an actual, real, dangerous situation that JSO created, while all of your "what if's" about the fleeing man are just "what if's." He certainly couldn't have created any more of a dangerous situation than JSO did, since he was unarmed.

When officers are fired upon driving down the road, why should anyone expect them not to be overprepared to protect themselves? Where is the neighborhood outcry over this incident?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 02:19:45 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:15:53 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 01:47:47 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 01:31:36 PM
A. He only got shot once

B.

They shot at him 8 times, 7 live rounds missed. This occurred in a residential neighborhood. What's more dangerous, an unarmed man running away, or firing 7 live rounds into a residential neighborhood?

You're evading the point.

The cops fired 7 live rounds into a residential neighborhood. JSO itself was the greater threat to public safety.

In the Lambs episode two bullets passed through the suspect and sailed along about thirty feet.....to my office!!
One lodged in a shingle just above a large slide window next to my desk and the other remains unrecovered,entombed in the building.
That by the way was accurate shooting- four rapid shots in a group about the size of a dinner plate.Had the suspect not gone down he was headed for my office front door.Angela Corey appeared on scene and noted the potential for hostage situation.I don't think I could manage such a tight group myself .......
None of this would have happened had the siuspect be sequestered previously for his long list of previous unlawful acts.

Stephen I agree with you about the law enforcement culture and potential for abuse.In this instance it was clear the erroneous assumptions lodged at JSO were quickly disproven thanks in part to the fact it was all on film but I will never forget the relief shown collectively by JSO over the fact that it was all on tape.....and that the suspect was not black.

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 03:09:34 PM
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/crimestoppers/news-article.aspx?storyid=183000&catid=69

Now THAT is a situation calling for use of deadly force. If the cop had opened fire on the vehicle that shot at him instead of taking cover and discontinuing the chase I would've been thinking "good job." That said, he did the prudent thing and discontinued escalating a firefight and high speed chase in the middle of a residential neighborhood. That is a great cop, and a wise decision. The safety of not only himself but of everyone in the neighborhood around him was more important than recreating the wild west. No doubt they'll catch the thugs, I'm sure he got a plate number.

But that has no bearing to this case, this guy was unarmed and just ran away after having already dropped the only thing that could have been confused as a gun. He never fired on anyone.

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 03:14:52 PM
When officers are fired upon driving down the road, why should anyone expect them not to be overprepared to protect themselves? Where is the neighborhood outcry over this incident?

That incident has little relation to this one.

And just because someone shot at a cop on Monday doesn't give JSO the right to start mowing people down on Tuesday because it might happen again. They know it is a dangerous job when they sign up for it, this shouldn't come as a surprise to them, nor is it any excuse for subsequent uses of excessive force.

QuoteIn the Lambs episode two bullets passed through the suspect and sailed along about thirty feet.....to my office!!

Somebody forgot to change out their ammunition after practice.  Hydro Shocks and Black Talons don't penetrate like that.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 01:27:12 PM

Quote from: Springfielder on December 22, 2010, 01:02:52 PM
I'm not weighing in one way or the other, however, the story did say that the officer saw what he presumed as something metallic in the guys waistband and that he shot when that person appeared to be reaching for it. That was his justification for using deadly force. Obviously, later, when he and the area was searched, there was no gun, but that does not alter what the officer presumed at the time he made the decision to discharge his weapon.

When situations such as this stem from multiple violations of the law and civil order, and when someone believes they see a weapon, that is often enough justification for the use of deadly force.

Thank you for the explanation, I honestly appreciate it. I have a general understanding of it, but am not well versed in this, I appreciate your taking the time to explain the standard. So it sounds like the officer did have justification initially, I guess my only question would be whether justification is something that can be extinguished if the weapon / presumed weapon is discarded? Or is it one of those things where once you have it you have it?

I would agree, that according to the article/reports of the officer saying he saw something metallic and the person appeared to be reaching for it, that would justify the use of deadly force.

Now if during the investigation it is found that there was no weapon, the outcome would rely upon statements of the officer involved and any and all witnesses...not to mention the chain of events that lead to the shooting. It's a rather detailed and in depth investigation, conducted by the state attorneys office...then of course, there will be the police review board to weigh in on policy/procedures. The shooting could still be deemed justified, if the evidence and statements show how the officer may have mistaken something as a weapon, along with the persons actions, that would have made the officer feel they had a weapon and were attempting to take hold of it to use. It could also be deemed excessive force used. Time will tell

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 03:12:56 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:59:55 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:26:28 PM
^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios.

No "what if's" involved in my analysis at all, unless you're arguing that 7 stray bullets flying through a residential neighborhood isn't a dangerous situation? Because that is an actual, real, dangerous situation that JSO created, while all of your "what if's" about the fleeing man are just "what if's." He certainly couldn't have created any more of a dangerous situation than JSO did, since he was unarmed.

driving 70 mph through a residential neighborhood (not to mention actually driving off the street and through a couple of yards) and not stopping at intersections is potentially more dangerous than several random bullet shot through a residential neighborhood.

either way both parties were wrong, but I’m amazed how most people take the side of the criminal over law enforcement.  the use of deadly force by the police may have been a little overboard, but how about potentially deadly force used by the assailant with his car on the residents of the neighborhood.  At least the police officers had a motive of stopping a criminal who had already used deadly force with his car against a police officer.

Quote from: Dog Walker on December 22, 2010, 03:35:00 PM

QuoteIn the Lambs episode two bullets passed through the suspect and sailed along about thirty feet.....to my office!!

Somebody forgot to change out their ammunition after practice.  Hydro Shocks and Black Talons don't penetrate like that.

One mushroomed to about 50 caliber and barely penetrated the shingle.This one was retrieved by JSO.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 03:27:20 PM

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 03:14:52 PM
When officers are fired upon driving down the road, why should anyone expect them not to be overprepared to protect themselves? Where is the neighborhood outcry over this incident?

That incident has little relation to this one.

And just because someone shot at a cop on Monday doesn't give JSO the right to start mowing people down on Tuesday because it might happen again. They know it is a dangerous job when they sign up for it, this shouldn't come as a surprise to them, nor is it any excuse for subsequent uses of excessive force.

Agree. Just wondering why no one is screaming about the injustice of shooting at this cop driving down the street patrolling the neighborhood. I have not heard about any protest on the streets or anyone on this site going after the idiots that did this. No outrage that idiots are driving down our streets and shooting at cops or innocent mothers? Why reserve the moral outrage for the drug dealers only?

^^ the best protest is to show how you are being discriminated against, not how you are discriminating against others.

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 04:37:00 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 03:27:20 PM

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 22, 2010, 03:14:52 PM
When officers are fired upon driving down the road, why should anyone expect them not to be overprepared to protect themselves? Where is the neighborhood outcry over this incident?

That incident has little relation to this one.

And just because someone shot at a cop on Monday doesn't give JSO the right to start mowing people down on Tuesday because it might happen again. They know it is a dangerous job when they sign up for it, this shouldn't come as a surprise to them, nor is it any excuse for subsequent uses of excessive force.

Agree. Just wondering why no one is screaming about the injustice of shooting at this cop driving down the street patrolling the neighborhood. I have not heard about any protest on the streets or anyone on this site going after the idiots that did this. No outrage that idiots are driving down our streets and shooting at cops or innocent mothers? Why reserve the moral outrage for the drug dealers only?

Simple.

The difference is that cops knew they are signing up for a dangerous job when they applied for it. I didn't sign up to have a hail of bullets flying through my window because someone decides to play Billy Badass and determined that not letting some guy disobey them and run off is more important than the safety of the neighborhood in which they decided to start an unnecessary firefight in.

Once the cops have the plate number and the suspect's physical description, and in this case his fingerprints as well, then just call it off already and issue a warrant. By continuing to escalate a high speed chase after that point, and by deciding to start shooting up a residential neighborhood, the cops are just placing everyone else's life in danger for no additional gain. It's irresponsible. At that point the guy's goose was already cooked, he was eventually going to get picked up no matter what. The article you posted is an example of a responsible decision. The original article that started this thread is a prime example of an irresponsible decision.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 22, 2010, 04:33:01 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 03:12:56 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:59:55 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:26:28 PM
^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios.

No "what if's" involved in my analysis at all, unless you're arguing that 7 stray bullets flying through a residential neighborhood isn't a dangerous situation? Because that is an actual, real, dangerous situation that JSO created, while all of your "what if's" about the fleeing man are just "what if's." He certainly couldn't have created any more of a dangerous situation than JSO did, since he was unarmed.

driving 70 mph through a residential neighborhood (not to mention actually driving off the street and through a couple of yards) and not stopping at intersections is potentially more dangerous than several random bullet shot through a residential neighborhood.

either way both parties were wrong, but I’m amazed how most people take the side of the criminal over law enforcement.  the use of deadly force by the police may have been a little overboard, but how about potentially deadly force used by the assailant with his car on the residents of the neighborhood.  At least the police officers had a motive of stopping a criminal who had already used deadly force with his car against a police officer.

That's ridiculous, for two reasons. Primarily, the cops should have broken off the high speed chase once it entered a residential neighborhood and they already had the guy's description and plate number. Secondly, if someone runs over my lawn so what, I'll get some new sod. Big deal. If stray bullets come flying through my window, I can't replace my life or my family's life. Tell me you really don't see the difference?

I'm not taking the criminal's side. He will get what he has coming to him, and as well he should. But I disagree with your implicit premise that I have to accept whatever action the cop decided to take just because he's a cop. What that officer did was irresponsible and placed other lives in danger for no purpose that couldn't have been accomplished another way. This wasn't some axe murderer of whom they were in hot pursuit, it was just some random idiot they tried to pull over for forgetting to turn his headlights on. Let the guy run off and pick him up later, this was not worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. This incident was grossly irresponsible.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 05:45:20 PM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 22, 2010, 04:33:01 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 03:12:56 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:59:55 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on December 22, 2010, 02:26:28 PM
^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios.

No "what if's" involved in my analysis at all, unless you're arguing that 7 stray bullets flying through a residential neighborhood isn't a dangerous situation? Because that is an actual, real, dangerous situation that JSO created, while all of your "what if's" about the fleeing man are just "what if's." He certainly couldn't have created any more of a dangerous situation than JSO did, since he was unarmed.

driving 70 mph through a residential neighborhood (not to mention actually driving off the street and through a couple of yards) and not stopping at intersections is potentially more dangerous than several random bullet shot through a residential neighborhood.

either way both parties were wrong, but I’m amazed how most people take the side of the criminal over law enforcement.  the use of deadly force by the police may have been a little overboard, but how about potentially deadly force used by the assailant with his car on the residents of the neighborhood.  At least the police officers had a motive of stopping a criminal who had already used deadly force with his car against a police officer.

That's ridiculous, for two reasons. Primarily, the cops should have broken off the high speed chase once it entered a residential neighborhood and they already had the guy's description and plate number. Secondly, if someone runs over my lawn so what, I'll get some new sod. Big deal. If stray bullets come flying through my window, I can't replace my life or my family's life. Tell me you really don't see the difference?

I'm not taking the criminal's side. He will get what he has coming to him, and as well he should. But I disagree with your implicit premise that I have to accept whatever action the cop decided to take just because he's a cop. What that officer did was irresponsible and placed other lives in danger for no purpose that couldn't have been accomplished another way. This wasn't some axe murderer of whom they were in hot pursuit, it was just some random idiot they tried to pull over for forgetting to turn his headlights on. Let the guy run off and pick him up later, this was not worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. This incident was grossly irresponsible.

+28

The thing that I really find interesting and sad about these discussions is that so many individuals refuse to put themselves in the shoes of their fellow man and analyze how they may hypothetically react in whatever given situation.

All this shit is ok with them because it does not affect them. 

Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

While driving with your lights off is something most of us have done, it is also a key indicator in DUI and as such police will pull over these drivers to check and see if they are drunk. If you are not drunk normally the officer will just let you know your lights were off and send you on your way. I am glad they do this, drunk drivers kill people. I have been pulled over for forgetting to turn my lights on, I did not run from the cops, ram their police cars, or drive through peoples yards, or on the sidewalk at 70mph. I do not flipping care why the guy was running. He was not in immediate danger of his life, he has no excuse for his behavior period. Now lets see what the investigation shows in regards to the officers reaction.

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 23, 2010, 08:17:34 AM
While driving with your lights off is something most of us have done, it is also a key indicator in DUI and as such police will pull over these drivers to check and see if they are drunk. If you are not drunk normally the officer will just let you know your lights were off and send you on your way. I am glad they do this, drunk drivers kill people. I have been pulled over for forgetting to turn my lights on, I did not run from the cops, ram their police cars, or drive through peoples yards, or on the sidewalk at 70mph. I do not flipping care why the guy was running. He was not in immediate danger of his life, he has no excuse for his behavior period. Now lets see what the investigation shows in regards to the officers reaction.

OK, but making a suspected DUI stop is still not worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. I'm sorry.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AM
Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 01:16:44 PM

Quote from: Live_Oak on December 22, 2010, 01:12:07 PM
The past 3 years is recent?

I certainly think looking at what occurred in the past 36 months qualifies as recent.

What's your definition of 'recent'? The past hour and a half? Only include shootings that happen on Tuesdays? Lol

I was assuming the past year.  But "recent" is a weasel word and really shouldn't be used since it means different things to different people.  I posted the stats for 08 and 09 to show that shootings like this have been decreasing.

I see an emphasis being made on just letting him go and trace the info (tag #, prints, physical description,etc.) rather than try to apprehend him.  Him, that just bolted when he saw blue lights, tore through a neighborhood, wrecked his car and fleed on foot - yeah, just get the info from the car, I'm sure that's enough to have him arrested tomorrow morning, a la CSI Jacksonville.  That officer had every right, imo, to pursue this guy because in real life, he can't just pull the patrol car over, write a report and hope that they get him later.  The moment that the guy took off when blue-lighted (assuming the cop was in a marked car) he commited a felony:

Quote316.1935  Fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer; aggravated fleeing or eluding.--
(2)  Any person who willfully flees or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle, with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle, with siren and lights activated commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The cop also only has a split second to decide why the guy ran to begin with and the possibilities include:  drunk, possession of drugs, bad license, stolen vehicle, all of the above.  All of those offenses are jailable as is the felony he commited the moment he stomped on the gas pedal.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can just let him go and try to play catch up later with FPs and registrations.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 10:07:02 AM
I see an emphasis being made on just letting him go and trace the info (tag #, prints, physical description,etc.) rather than try to apprehend him.  Him, that just bolted when he saw blue lights, tore through a neighborhood, wrecked his car and fleed on foot - yeah, just get the info from the car, I'm sure that's enough to have him arrested tomorrow morning, a la CSI Jacksonville.  That officer had every right, imo, to pursue this guy because in real life, he can't just pull the patrol car over, write a report and hope that they get him later.  The moment that the guy took off when blue-lighted (assuming the cop was in a marked car) he commited a felony:

Quote316.1935  Fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer; aggravated fleeing or eluding.--
(2)  Any person who willfully flees or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle, with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle, with siren and lights activated commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The cop also only has a split second to decide why the guy ran to begin with and the possibilities include:  drunk, possession of drugs, bad license, stolen vehicle, all of the above.  All of those offenses are jailable as is the felony he commited the moment he stomped on the gas pedal.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can just let him go and try to play catch up later with FPs and registrations.

You just demonstrated how little you read these threads you decide to post in, since I mentioned felony fleeing and eluding 3 pages ago. But thanks for regurgitating what I already wrote about, that was supremely helpful! Also, your analysis is flawed. If this happened in the woods or some deserted area, then that's one thing. This started as a traffic stop for the guy forgetting to turn his headlights on, neither that nor anything else on your little list was worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. This didn't happen in a vacant area, it happened in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

And I'm sorry that you consider a cop having to spend 10 minutes running a registration or taking fingerprints to be "CSI Jacksonville" and apparently feel that avoiding this labor is a valid reason to just shoot the guy. I consider it basic police work, as I suspect most people do.

Quote from: Live_Oak on December 23, 2010, 10:01:44 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 22, 2010, 01:16:44 PM

Quote from: Live_Oak on December 22, 2010, 01:12:07 PM
The past 3 years is recent?

I certainly think looking at what occurred in the past 36 months qualifies as recent.

What's your definition of 'recent'? The past hour and a half? Only include shootings that happen on Tuesdays? Lol

I was assuming the past year.  But "recent" is a weasel word and really shouldn't be used since it means different things to different people.  I posted the stats for 08 and 09 to show that shootings like this have been decreasing.

My definition of recent as being the past 36 months is hardly unreasonable. As far as a weasel's word, I guess if I were you I'd take that up with Webster's since they say it's appropriate. And by limiting your analysis to 2008 and 2009, which conveniently excludes the recent period during which we had more police shootings than all the other major cities in Florida combined, I must ask whether that brings back all the dead people from 2007?

I think it's clear that some great number of these shootings were probably brought about as much by JSO's policies as anything else, if the number drops like it has after you guys institute policy changes. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly happy to see the numbers decreasing, but the second point in there is that JSO's policies were obviously contributing to this problem to begin with. The economy has only continued to worsen, and our local population has grown, so connect the dots there.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AM
You just demonstrated how little you read these threads you decide to post in, since I mentioned felony fleeing and eluding 3 pages ago. But thanks for regurgitating what I already wrote about, that was supremely helpful!

Glad I could assist.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AM
Also, your analysis is flawed. If this happened in the woods or some deserted area, then that's one thing. This started as a traffic stop for the guy forgetting to turn his headlights on, neither that nor anything else on your little list was worth shooting up a residential neighborhood.

I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AMThis didn't happen in a vacant area, it happened in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

So I guess that you learned that while reading, 'How to Lose the Cops for Dummies!'?  I guess the next time I get pulled over, I'll just hang a right into the nearest neighborhood and drive through a few lawns so the EVIL JSO officer will stop following me.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AMAnd I'm sorry that you consider a cop having to spend 10 minutes running a registration or taking fingerprints to be "CSI Jacksonville" and apparently feel that avoiding this labor is a valid reason to just shoot the guy. I consider it basic police work, as I suspect most people do.

Talk about flawed logic.....  So, in your opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that own cars have them registered in their names?  Also, in your  opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that have cars registered in their name would just pull over when blue-lighted?  Yeah, me too.  It's the one's that aren't so law abiding in the first place that flee the police  So, would it be too much to assume that the cop could assume that this guy was up to a little more than "forgetting to turn on his headlights" and would warrant a little more than letting him go?  I know in your perfect world, he would be scooped in a few days once they traced the car, followed leads, ran the possibly dozens of sets of prints found in the car (my wife and brother and friends (sometimes) drive my car) and spent hundreds of man-hours - justice would be served.  Sounds like a great plan.::) 

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:40:22 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AM
You just demonstrated how little you read these threads you decide to post in, since I mentioned felony fleeing and eluding 3 pages ago. But thanks for regurgitating what I already wrote about, that was supremely helpful!

Glad I could assist.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AM
Also, your analysis is flawed. If this happened in the woods or some deserted area, then that's one thing. This started as a traffic stop for the guy forgetting to turn his headlights on, neither that nor anything else on your little list was worth shooting up a residential neighborhood.

I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AMThis didn't happen in a vacant area, it happened in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

So I guess that you learned that while reading, 'How to Lose the Cops for Dummies!'?  I guess the next time I get pulled over, I'll just hang a right into the nearest neighborhood and drive through a few lawns so the EVIL JSO officer will stop following me.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AMAnd I'm sorry that you consider a cop having to spend 10 minutes running a registration or taking fingerprints to be "CSI Jacksonville" and apparently feel that avoiding this labor is a valid reason to just shoot the guy. I consider it basic police work, as I suspect most people do.

Talk about flawed logic.....  So, in your opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that own cars have them registered in their names?  Also, in your  opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that have cars registered in their name would just pull over when blue-lighted?  Yeah, me too.  It's the one's that aren't so law abiding in the first place that flee the police  So, would it be too much to assume that the cop could assume that this guy was up to a little more than "forgetting to turn on his headlights" and would warrant a little more than letting him go?  I know in your perfect world, he would be scooped in a few days once they traced the car, followed leads, ran the possibly dozens of sets of prints found in the car (my wife and brother and friends (sometimes) drive my car) and spent hundreds of man-hours - justice would be served.  Sounds like a great plan.::) 

So then you agree that JSO should have broken off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood?

Glad you agree with my "flawed logic" then. Thanks!

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:42:51 AM
So then you agree that JSO should have broken off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood?

Glad you agree with my "flawed logic" then. Thanks!

so this.....

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:40:22 AM
I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

means I agree with shooting up a neighborhood.

??? ??? ???

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:47:32 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 11:42:51 AM
So then you agree that JSO should have broken off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood?

Glad you agree with my "flawed logic" then. Thanks!

so this.....

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:40:22 AM
I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

means I agree with shooting up a neighborhood.

??? ??? ???

Nice stupid rhetoric.

Back in reality-land, my question was whether you believe JSO should have let the unarmed man run off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood? So why don't you answer it?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 09:28:22 AM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AM
Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

There should be! And we havea family here in our neighborhood that lost their young son to an idiot like this driving all over yards and sidewalks...so NO at 70MPH you DON'T have enough time to get out of the way, unfortunately this young man who lost his life is proof of that.

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 23, 2010, 08:37:02 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 09:28:22 AM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AM
Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

There should be! And we havea family here in our neighborhood that lost their young son to an idiot like this driving all over yards and sidewalks...so NO at 70MPH you DON'T have enough time to get out of the way, unfortunately this young man who lost his life is proof of that.

You think there should be an FBI background check before someone is allowed to buy a car? Lol

Yes clearly that's the solution to this problem...

Keep in mind that the person posting all of this criticism has NEVER been involved in any pursuit. He has NEVER even made a traffic stop.   He has NEVER arrested anyone.  He has NEVER had to make the life and death decision to shoot or not.  He has NEVER been involved in any shooting.  He has NEVER even lifted the infamous fingerprint that he so desires. 

Chris, you have the right to say whatever you want, no matter how irresponsible.  If I am wrong about any of the above, please correct me.  By the way, can you share with us any training you might have in police pursuits, police use of force, or any tactical training?  To be honest, based on your posts, you seem to be quite ignorant in these areas.  No offense meant.  It's just important to note the qualifications of the guy who is challenging law enforcement practices that are accepted throughout the nation.  You hate cops.  We get it.  But the blathering is just....tiresome.

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 11:01:21 PM
...You hate cops.  We get it.  But the blathering is just....tiresome.

He doesn't hate 'cops' per se, only the one's that actually try to apprehend criminals.  He'd rather them send deputies out to the house of the person whose name is tied to the registration or who's fingerprints were found in the car.  I don't think he has the capacity to understand how many of these 'incidents' occur when the bad guy is caught, with a cache of drugs, in a stolen car, after just getting out of jail -again, that the paper doesn't report.

Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

I'll have take your word on it, but I'll also have to keep the belief that there are written rules, and there are understood rules.   It may be written that the cops won't pursue into residential areas, but what sense does that actually make? 

It also makes sense to apprehend the one's who run - they apparently know that they're doing more than forgetting to turn the lights on or forgetting to stop for a red light.  That's my only point, the one's that run from the lights are most likely the one's who need to be caught the most.

Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2010, 11:31:19 PM
Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:27:52 PM
Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:01:47 AM
Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 09:28:22 AM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AM
Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

Frogs are frogs and fish is fish.  Just like interpretations and opinions.

Chris there are more death by automobiles than  guns, so why not?

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:42:03 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:01:47 AM
Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

Once again, NotNow doesn't bother to read the thread in which he's posting...Nice.

Your fellow officer springfielder posted that JSO's pursuit policy is not to engage in high speed chases unless there some kind of imminent threat of violence/homicide. To clear this up, I'll go ahead and send another PR request today for JSO's policy on high speed chases. You guys are burning up my postage meter on certified mail today...

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 24, 2010, 09:56:59 AM
Chris there are more death by automobiles than  guns, so why not?

So are you saying that there are as many people on the roads with guns as there are with cars?

Otherwise that's a pretty nonsensical point, don't you think?

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 24, 2010, 09:56:21 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 09:28:22 AM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AM
Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

Frogs are frogs and fish is fish.  Just like interpretations and opinions.

Well thank you for finally acknowledging the point then...

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:06:14 AM

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:42:03 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:01:47 AM
Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

Once again, NotNow doesn't bother to read the thread in which he's posting...Nice.

Your fellow officer springfielder posted that JSO's pursuit policy is not to engage in high speed chases unless there some kind of imminent threat of violence/homicide. To clear this up, I'll go ahead and send another PR request today for JSO's policy on high speed chases. You guys are burning up my postage meter on certified mail today...

Well, SOMEBODY is not reading!  What makes you think that Springfielder is a JSO Officer?  Where exactly did you get your ideas on JSO's pursuit policy?  Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Isn't that getting embarrassing?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:07:30 AM

Quote from: uptowngirl on December 24, 2010, 09:56:59 AM
Chris there are more death by automobiles than  guns, so why not?

So are you saying that there are as many people on the roads with guns as there are with cars?

Otherwise that's a pretty nonsensical point, don't you think?

Not at all. There absolutely are more cars on the road than LEGAL guns. BUT, since you are more likley to die by car than gun perhaps owning and operating a car should be a little more controlled. Anyone with a small amount of cash and some ID can get a license. Heck in New Mexico the driving test is like a video game with pictures for those that cannot read. I just sat on a jury a couple months ago where not one other person on the jury knew the Florida statues regarding the lane markings on the road. All where smart people, and all drive, but not one of them knew the laws of Florida.  

To set things straight, I never said I was quoting JSO policy, in this or any other thread.

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 10:17:01 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:06:14 AM

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:42:03 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 09:01:47 AM
Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

Again, what policy are you quoting?  Certainly not the JSO pursuit policy.

Once again, NotNow doesn't bother to read the thread in which he's posting...Nice.

Your fellow officer springfielder posted that JSO's pursuit policy is not to engage in high speed chases unless there some kind of imminent threat of violence/homicide. To clear this up, I'll go ahead and send another PR request today for JSO's policy on high speed chases. You guys are burning up my postage meter on certified mail today...

Well, SOMEBODY is not reading!  What makes you think that Springfielder is a JSO Officer?  Where exactly did you get your ideas on JSO's pursuit policy?  Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Isn't that getting embarrassing?

Ha! No wonder I was confused!

It never occurred to me that someone would be so asinine as to state JSO's pursuit policy, and then that same person would turn around and argue that the policy had never been stated! It was actually NotAgain who stated the relevant portion of the policy, not Springfielder, my mistake. Never dawned on me that someone would quote a JSO policy and then deny they'd said it. That really takes a special kind of genius...

So I now present you with NotAgain's own words;

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
JSO does not engage in vehicle pursuits over traffic violations.

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
pursuits are only allowed for violent felonies and some DUI's.  

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
Every pursuit is monitored by a Sergeant and a Watch Commander who can (and often do) call off the pursuit.  

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
Officers are charged with discontinuing the pursuit if the danger to the public exceeds the nature of the crime they are pursuing for.

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
No more than two marked units should normally be involved.  (There is a lot more to the subject, in fact, JSO's written directive is VERY long.  Too much for this format.)

I highlighted the relevant part above for you. So you still going to argue that we never had the policy?

LMFAO, you really outdid yourself this time NotAgain...

Quote from: Springfielder on December 24, 2010, 10:25:31 AM
To set things straight, I never said I was quoting JSO policy, in this or any other thread.

You are correct, it turned out it was actually the very same genius who was arguing with me that the policy had never been stated who had himself stated the policy. NotNow seriously outdid himself this time! LMFAO!

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:40:36 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2010, 11:31:19 PM
Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:27:52 PM
Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?

I was quoting YOU, genius...

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 11:00:20 AM

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:40:36 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2010, 11:31:19 PM
Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:27:52 PM
Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?

I was quoting YOU, genius...

First, calm down.  You are getting all lathered up over a conversation.

Second, perhaps you should reread what I posted.  I never said a "homicide" or "danger of homicide" was required. 

Third, are you an adult?  I was under the impression that you were a law school grad.  Are you over 21?

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 11:40:18 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 11:00:20 AM

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 09:40:36 AM

Quote from: stephendare on December 23, 2010, 11:31:19 PM
Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 23, 2010, 11:27:52 PM
Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?

I was quoting YOU, genius...

First, calm down.  You are getting all lathered up over a conversation.

Second, perhaps you should reread what I posted.  I never said a "homicide" or "danger of homicide" was required. 

Third, are you an adult?  I was under the impression that you were a law school grad.  Are you over 21?

First off, I'm not upset, so there's hardly a need to calm down...

Yes, I am 30, and yes I am a law school graduate, not some infant in a crib, but thanks for the vote of confidence! I admit I was having a bit of fun at your expense, but you can hardly blame me, I mean it turned out that you were chastising me for mentioning a policy that you said had never been stated, when you were actually the one who had originally posted it. Come on, that's priceless.

And FWIW, my original point is that JSO has a duty not to create a greater danger to public safety than whatever crime they are trying to prevent. The policy you stated, which I was quoting, clearly bears this out. My comments regarding the policy restricting high speed chases to situations involving violence or homicide seem pretty clear cut, when the JSO policy according to your own statements narrows such pursuits to situations involving violent felonies or severe impairment.

Clearly the common theme there is the imminent risk of death to others, and for the record, wouldn't the word for someone killing another person happen to be "homicide"?

Um, no, it wouldn't.  Get the policy and read it.  It clearly spells out the reasons for pursuit.  It is NOT limited to homicide or danger of homicide.  I am chastising you for failure to comprehend.  Reeling off a statement and attributing it to me is not debate, especially when my statements are clearly posted.  So, come on, try to keep the discussion on an adult level.

I will point out, that I have not quoted the policy word for word.  It is my belief that to publicly publish such information is detrimental to the police mission for obvious reasons.  However, the policy is public record, and for any posters who have the interest the complete text of teh written directive can be obtained. 

I am simply pointing out the reason for my inexact language and that what I have posted here is NOT the official policy of the JSO.

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 12:05:57 PM
Um, no, it wouldn't.  Get the policy and read it.  It clearly spells out the reasons for pursuit.  It is NOT limited to homicide or danger of homicide.  I am chastising you for failure to comprehend.  Reeling off a statement and attributing it to me is not debate, especially when my statements are clearly posted.  So, come on, try to keep the discussion on an adult level.

I'm not the one as between the two of us with any failure to comprehend anything, sorry bud but you're sunk by your own words (which I quoted for you on page 9 of this thread) on this one.

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 12:17:07 PM
I will point out, that I have not quoted the policy word for word.  It is my belief that to publicly publish such information is detrimental to the police mission for obvious reasons.  However, the policy is public record, and for any posters who have the interest the complete text of teh written directive can be obtained.  

I am simply pointing out the reason for my inexact language and that what I have posted here is NOT the official policy of the JSO.

Well any fault for using inexact language would necessarily be yours, wouldn't it? Since you were the one posting about the policy, no? I was simply quoted what you said. Lol, so slice and dice this one whichever way you want, you just keep looking worse and worse. Maybe you should just cut to the chase and post a nit-picking screed about everything that's wrong with your own post? LMAO

Chris...this is tiresome.  Where did I state that JSO requires "danger of homicide" to pursue?  I did not.  I'm not trying to "look" like anything.  I do this for a living.  I have done this for more than two decades.  You? 

Your refusal to admit that you have no real experience says it all.  I have attempted to help, but you prefer to make fun of people and rant.  That says more about you than the others on this site.

Get back to me when you grow up in more than years of life.

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 01:10:20 PM
Chris...this is tiresome.  Where did I state that JSO requires "danger of homicide" to pursue?  I did not.  I'm not trying to "look" like anything.  I do this for a living.  I have done this for more than two decades.  You?  

Your refusal to admit that you have no real experience says it all.  I have attempted to help, but you prefer to make fun of people and rant.  That says more about you than the others on this site.

Get back to me when you grow up in more than years of life.

All I did was quote YOU, genius...

So rather than acknowledge that this is right there in black and white, you attack the poster personally?

Like I said just cut to the chase and do one of your typical nonsensical screeds about how wrong your own post was, since that's the post I was referring to. Lol. For anyone with a brain and at least one working eye, I quoted your comments for you on page 9, so they're free to read what you wrote in black and white.

You clearly said chases were limited by policy to violent felonies and certain DUI situations, which plainly shows the common concern there is the risk of death to others. And since you actually just tried to deny that "homicide" means one person killing another, here's the definition for you;

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homicide

QuotePrinceton WordNet

Noun

S: (n) homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)

So keep digging your hole, this is just getting funnier and funnier. And I don't particularly care how tedious you find situations in which you effectively manage to prove yourself wrong, that's not really my problem is it? I'll admit it's certainly entertaining though.

"You clearly said chases were limited by policy to violent felonies and certain DUI situations, which plainly shows the common concern there is the risk of death to others."

The 'which plainly shows' part is where you are required to think a little better.  If you really have a question, then consult the JSO directive.  It is pretty simple.  Try looking up 'forcible felonies' in the FSS.

I am not digging a hole, son.  I do this every day.  You are just typing in the dark.  Have an "entertaining" day.

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 01:37:02 PM
"You clearly said chases were limited by policy to violent felonies and certain DUI situations, which plainly shows the common concern there is the risk of death to others."

The 'which plainly shows' part is where you are required to think a little better.  If you really have a question, then consult the JSO directive.  It is pretty simple.  Try looking up 'forcible felonies' in the FSS.

You said what you said, genius...

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
JSO does not engage in vehicle pursuits over traffic violations.

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
pursuits are only allowed for violent felonies and some DUI's.  

Did someone hijack your keyboard and write that? Or this?

Quote from: NotNow on December 23, 2010, 01:01:28 PM
Officers are charged with discontinuing the pursuit if the danger to the public exceeds the nature of the crime they are pursuing for.

Must really suck for you when someone quotes you so your words can't 'disappear' like usual...

Quote from: NotNow on December 24, 2010, 01:37:02 PM
I am not digging a hole, son.  I do this every day.  You are just typing in the dark.  Have an "entertaining" day.

I'm not your son. And, yeah, you've dug a hole clean through to China. You look like an idiot, contradicting yourself from one post to the next. You wrote what you wrote, it's there in black and white for whoever wants to read it.

And thanks to you I've had a very entertaining day. Better luck next time.

This is not a debate.  I know the policy and you have never seen it.  Picking out words and then making up your own rules based on YOUR interpretation is what you do, but it does not change the truth.  You guys made up some kind of homicide rule for pursuits.  I'm telling you that idea is wrong.  You made up a 'rule' that I never said OR inferred.  Now you can insist that you are "right" all you want, it won't change JSO's policy, which is what we are discussing.  If you want to debate the policy, get a copy and I will be happy to do that.  But since you have no knowledge of the JSO pursuit policy, this argument is moot...Son.

Quote from: NotNow on December 25, 2010, 08:19:40 PM
This is not a debate.  I know the policy and you have never seen it.  Picking out words and then making up your own rules based on YOUR interpretation is what you do, but it does not change the truth.  You guys made up some kind of homicide rule for pursuits.  I'm telling you that idea is wrong.  You made up a 'rule' that I never said OR inferred.  Now you can insist that you are "right" all you want, it won't change JSO's policy, which is what we are discussing.  If you want to debate the policy, get a copy and I will be happy to do that.  But since you have no knowledge of the JSO pursuit policy, this argument is moot...Son.

You quoted the policy, genius...keep digging your hole.

And just because you're old enough to be my grandfather doesn't make me your son, gramps!

Old enough to know better than to argue a policy that I had never seen.  Once again, you are arguing about something that you know nothing about.  I an not a genius, but I know better than that!  

Did you look up forcible felonies?  Is it limited to homicide?  

I am not here to "quote" policy.  I am attempting to assist those that have an open mind to see things from a JSO perspective.  If you want to argue policy, go visit the Sheriff.  

A little advise from an old guy, know the subject or get a subject matter expert...or just don't go into it.  If you ever do actually get into a courtroom this kind of crap will get your a$$ handed to you.

Quote from: NotNow on December 25, 2010, 08:35:06 PM
Old enough to know better than to argue a policy that I had never seen.  Once again, you are arguing about something that you know nothing about.  I an not a genius, but I know better than that!  

Did you look up forcible felonies?  Is it limited to homicide?  

I am not here to "quote" policy.  I am attempting to assist those that have an open mind to see things from a JSO perspective.  If you want to argue policy, go visit the Sheriff.  

A little advise from an old guy, know the subject or get a subject matter expert...or just don't go into it.  If you ever do actually get into a courtroom this kind of crap will get your a$$ handed to you.

You're not handing anything to me except a pile of your typical B.S.

You keep acting like I'm referencing some policy I've never heard of, when YOU were the one posting about it, genius. Like I said, takes a special kind of idiot to post about a policy and then claim the policy they just posted is wrong. So which is it? Either way you're wrong, genius. Pick your poison. Need me to quote your own words again for you?

And I already posted the definition of "homicide" which naturally directly contradicted your argument. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Websters. I didn't write the dictionary, just pointed out that as usual you clearly haven't bothered to use it.

Chris, you obviously just want to bitch about the Sheriff's Office.  I have tried to offer you insight, and experience, but you just want to pick a fight...about a subject that you know nothing about.  You don't need me to accomplish what you want to do.  And I don't need to be insulted or lectured by you.  You obviously don't wish to communicate, but rather to argue. 

So enjoy yourself.

Quote from: NotNow on December 25, 2010, 08:54:27 PM
Chris, you obviously just want to bitch about the Sheriff's Office.  I have tried to offer you insight, and experience, but you just want to pick a fight...about a subject that you know nothing about.  You don't need me to accomplish what you want to do.  And I don't need to be insulted or lectured by you.  You obviously don't wish to communicate, but rather to argue. 

So enjoy yourself.

NotNow, you posted about the JSO pursuit policy, then spent two pages ranting about how that was wrong when you were the one who had posted about the policy. That's what you actually did, and it's just plain asinine. Then when I pointed out how effectively you'd managed to hoist yourself on your own petard on this one, you started attacking me personally and calling me "Son." Both of us are aware that isn't "offering insight," you're just trying to whitewash your failed argument and your personal attack as some benign attempt to be helpful.

My point in this thread was not to bitch about JSO, it was to voice opposition to police chases that create more danger than they are supposed to prevent. As it turns out, at least according to your post, JSO has already instituted a policy that high speed chases are not supposed to occur when the chase presents a greater danger to the public than the crime the chase is supposed to prevent, and that was really my point all along. So I'm happy to know they have that policy.

Honestly, I would've let you off the hook two pages ago if you hadn't done one of your typical heel-digging stunts and pulled a complete 180 and started denying that anyone had ever written about the policy, forcing me to go back and quote you for yourself since you were actually the one who'd written about it. You create these unnecessary arguments that backfire when you dig your heels in. What do you think you're accomplishing when you tell people something and then claim they don't know what you just told them? Sorry the debate got sidetracked with that foolishness, but what did you expect?

Your interpretation and inferences from my posts were not honest and were made to serve your own purpose, which is just argumentative.  Again, since I am the only one of us with any training and experience in this area, and I am the only one of us who has actually read the JSO policy, there really is no basis for any of this discussion.  

Beyond this particular subject, your revulsion of law enforcement and JSO in particular seem quite clear to me.  I am aware that you protest this point, but a quick review of threads that you have initiated make it quite obvious.  Rather than bicker with someone whose mind is made up, and since you have made it clear that you have no respect for my opinion, I don't see any reason to converse with you.  I will continue to point out your inaccuracies and I am sure that you will continue to mock me and any others who disagree with your opinion.  But I will attempt to not converse with you for the above listed reasons.

Quote from: NotNow on December 25, 2010, 10:11:31 PM
Your interpretation and inferences from my posts were not honest and were made to serve your own purpose, which is just argumentative.  Again, since I am the only one of us with any training and experience in this area, and I am the only one of us who has actually read the JSO policy, there really is no basis for any of this discussion.  

Beyond this particular subject, your revulsion of law enforcement and JSO in particular seem quite clear to me.  I am aware that you protest this point, but a quick review of threads that you have initiated make it quite obvious.  Rather than bicker with someone whose mind is made up, and since you have made it clear that you have no respect for my opinion, I don't see any reason to converse with you.  I will continue to point out your inaccuracies and I am sure that you will continue to mock me and any others who disagree with your opinion.  But I will attempt to not converse with you for the above listed reasons.

I "dishonestly" quoted what you wrote? How is that even possible? You wrote it.

Revulsion of law enforcement? Give me a break. Let's not get confused here; Just because I don't like an internet message board poster that happens to be a cop doesn't mean I dislike all cops. The common thread in these debates is generally you. You're really stretching the logic on that one. As far as mocking people, do you happen to be standing in front of a mirror when you write these screeds?

You're the one who jumped in here (like always) and started claiming everybody is unqualified to disagree with your opinion, notwithstanding the fact that you'd just completely contradicted yourself, and then started calling me "son." You took it there, not me. Am I supposed to feel bad now? You're a crybaby when it comes to this, you insult people constantly and the minute someone gives you back 10% of what you've been dishing out, you get all butthurt over it and go crying to the moderators. I have seen this play out a hundred times over the last few years, it's ridiculous. If you treated others with basic respect you wouldn't have these problems.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 24, 2010, 10:08:34 AM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 24, 2010, 09:56:21 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 23, 2010, 09:28:22 AM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AM
Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

Frogs are frogs and fish is fish.  Just like interpretations and opinions.

Well thank you for finally acknowledging the point then...

I don't think I acknowledged your point, but I'm glad you feel better about it.  You might want to have your self esteam checked, it might help with your always having to be right complex.

by the way, FBI background checks don't stop people from buying guns.  The majority of crimes commited with guns are done so with ones that are illegally owned and stolen.  Not mention the amount of drivers on the road without driver's licenses, suspended driver's licenses and revoked driver's licenses.  Having a federal permit for a gun doesn't lower the gun crime stats that much, and it certainly wouldn't put a dent in auto deaths.

"An armed society is a polite society." - Robert Heinlein

butthurt?  LOL!

A motor vehicle can indeed become a deadly weapon, it's not legal fiction. People have intentionally aimed their vehicles at civilians and law enforcement. When a person does so, the vehicle in fact, becomes a deadly weapon.

If you recall, (I believe it was this past year, maybe the previous) a male was intentionally backing into a police car, and even though he was ordered to stop, he didn't and did it again...the officer ended up shooting and killing the man. The SAO investigated and found it to be a justified shooting, since there was a civilian in the police unit.

Or perhaps one would recall (this was not here in Florida) when a woman ran over her husband with her car and killed him. Again...the vehicle was the deadly weapon and she was convicted.

There's many other cases...those just came to mind...but there's no doubt that a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon.

From the original article...

QuoteThe driver went through two homeowners' yards and then backed into a JSO cruiser, police said.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AMCase in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...

"Gimme a break",  OK we'll grant that you are not a well versed shooter. 

     a. Weapons permit?  You do not need a "weapons permit" in Florida to by a firearm, knife, sword, cross bow, long bow, arrow, sling shot, spear gun, Hawaiian sling, club, etc.

     b. The only thing close to it is a "Concealed Weapon or Firearm License" which is only required to carry it concealed on your person.

     c. Statuary waiting periods apply to hand guns but not all guns. You can buy a long gun without a waiting period.

     d. NICS checks prevent felons and others from purchasing a fire arm from a FFL. It does not prevent private sales.



Driver's license has a check built in for a series of offenses like DUI, repeated citations, Vehicular homicide, child support delinquency. Usually noted in suspensions due to......etc.

Quote from: Overstreet on December 27, 2010, 02:25:37 PM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 23, 2010, 12:17:55 AMCase in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...

"Gimme a break",  OK we'll grant that you are not a well versed shooter.  

    a. Weapons permit?  You do not need a "weapons permit" in Florida to by a firearm, knife, sword, cross bow, long bow, arrow, sling shot, spear gun, Hawaiian sling, club, etc.

    b. The only thing close to it is a "Concealed Weapon or Firearm License" which is only required to carry it concealed on your person.

    c. Statuary waiting periods apply to hand guns but not all guns. You can buy a long gun without a waiting period.

    d. NICS checks prevent felons and others from purchasing a fire arm from a FFL. It does not prevent private sales.



Driver's license has a check built in for a series of offenses like DUI, repeated citations, Vehicular homicide, child support delinquency. Usually noted in suspensions due to......etc.

I have a CCW permit and am an experienced shooter. You would need a permit to carry a firearm in someone else's residential neighborhood in Florida, no? Last I checked open carry is impermissible for the general public. The comparison was between a speeding car and stray rounds in a residential neighborhood being equally dangerous was flawed, hence my comparison regarding why there aren't such statutory restrictions on buying a car. Also you're making a false comparison, I was referring to the legal differences between a gun and a car. You can buy a car without any rudimentary check at all. And speaking of private sales, what would you say there are more of, private sales of guns or cars? All those guys selling cars on craigslist are going to check insurance and your drivers license before taking your cash? 12 of one and a dozen of the other. Point is that the law plainly recognizes which is the more dangerous instrumentality. If the two are just as inherently dangerous then why is driving my car down a public street not treated as open carry? Where is the statute banning felons from owning vehicles? (I'd guess a lot of crimes involve a car as transport to/from the scene wouldn't you think?) The whole comparison is ludicrous, multiple stray rounds flying through a residential neighborhood is not the same thing as a car speeding.

Quote from: Springfielder on December 27, 2010, 11:06:53 AM
A motor vehicle can indeed become a deadly weapon, it's not legal fiction. People have intentionally aimed their vehicles at civilians and law enforcement. When a person does so, the vehicle in fact, becomes a deadly weapon.

If you recall, (I believe it was this past year, maybe the previous) a male was intentionally backing into a police car, and even though he was ordered to stop, he didn't and did it again...the officer ended up shooting and killing the man. The SAO investigated and found it to be a justified shooting, since there was a civilian in the police unit.

Or perhaps one would recall (this was not here in Florida) when a woman ran over her husband with her car and killed him. Again...the vehicle was the deadly weapon and she was convicted.

There's many other cases...those just came to mind...but there's no doubt that a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon.

Legal fiction just refers to something the law deems meets some certain criteria when outside of the legal context it really doesn't. I was just trying to point out that anything heavier than a feather pillow can satisfy the deadly weapon element of the agg assault statute if some idiot decides to start clobbering people with it. A golf club, a lawn mower, a car, even a plain old rock, a baseball bat, a frying pan, hell you name it, anything at all can be legally considered a deadly weapon even though out in the real world we all know none of these items are as inherently lethal as rounds from a 38. The law just treats them that way under certain circumstances. That's what I meant when I said legal fiction.

somehow my reply to this got entered ahead of your comment.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 27, 2010, 04:28:54 PM
somehow my reply to this got entered ahead of your comment.

I was trying to fix a spelling error and wound up deleting the whole post by accident. Had to repost.

iPad touchscreen is a pain for typing.

you must be one of the few that care about correct spelling on message boards any more.  the tech gadgets and new means of communication are killing the English language and the ability to spell.

Just wait until you have to type on that thing outside in 98 degree weather.  It’s a great gadget, but the heat sensitive touch screen can be a pain at times (especially when typing).

Yeah the spell check is what kills me the most on this stupid thing, it changes words it doesn't recognize into two smaller words, or else it adds a space in the middle of the word. I have to spell check the spell checker constantly!

When I was in grade school the only thing we did on the computers was play Oregon trail and sometimes use bank street writer, lol. Actually learned to type on a typewriter. I agree writing has gone downhill noticeably in the newer generations since spellcheck became a substitute for an actual vocabulary.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 21, 2010, 10:34:55 PM

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:31:47 PM
Chris, the suspect is not dead. See updated news story.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/26203064/detail.html

He's not dead only because the officer was such a bad shot that most of the 8 rounds he fired at the guy's back missed. So I'll ask this again, are you saying it's the citizen's fault the officer missed?

How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?

Tamara,

Sometime over the next seven years or so, have someone by complete surprise give you the command to go...then participate in a high speed vehicle pursuit for a few miles.  After the suspect rams your car and flees on foot, jump out in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar neigborhood, chase the suspect through backyards, kiddie pools, clotheslines, and various fences.  Then, when he turns and reaches into his pants....and you are convinced that the suspect is about to attempt to hurt you..shoot the moving target at twenty yards.  Let me know how your marksmanship measures up.

Again, until you have walked a mile in those shoes...

Quote from: NotNow on July 04, 2012, 12:58:51 AM
Tamara,

Sometime over the next seven years or so, have someone by complete surprise give you the command to go...then participate in a high speed vehicle pursuit for a few miles.  After the suspect rams your car and flees on foot, jump out in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar neigborhood, chase the suspect through backyards, kiddie pools, clotheslines, and various fences.  Then, when he turns and reaches into his pants....and you are convinced that the suspect is about to attempt to hurt you..shoot the moving target at twenty yards.  Let me know how your marksmanship measures up.

Again, until you have walked a mile in those shoes...

Um..still doesn't answer my question.

Quote from: NotNow on July 04, 2012, 12:58:51 AM
Tamara,

Sometime over the next seven years or so, have someone by complete surprise give you the command to go...then participate in a high speed vehicle pursuit for a few miles.  After the suspect rams your car and flees on foot, jump out in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar neigborhood, chase the suspect through backyards, kiddie pools, clotheslines, and various fences.  Then, when he turns and reaches into his pants....and you are convinced that the suspect is about to attempt to hurt you..shoot the moving target at twenty yards.  Let me know how your marksmanship measures up.

Again, until you have walked a mile in those shoes...

Okay, so in  the next seven years I should participate in a "high speed vehicle  pursuit for a few miles?" Um..I'm not at liberty to do such a thing unless I want to get arrested.

Is it Easter? Cause this thread has risen from the grave.... ;D

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 03, 2012, 09:27:33 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 21, 2010, 10:34:55 PM

Quote from: Singejoufflue on December 21, 2010, 10:31:47 PM
Chris, the suspect is not dead. See updated news story.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/26203064/detail.html

He's not dead only because the officer was such a bad shot that most of the 8 rounds he fired at the guy's back missed. So I'll ask this again, are you saying it's the citizen's fault the officer missed?

How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?

Considering this happened at night and you don't know how well the lighting was around the suspect and without knowing how far the officer was from the suspect and how the suspect was moving with respect to where the officer was standing you cannot say that the officer was using poor techniques. 

Quote from: stephendare on July 04, 2012, 10:44:53 AM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 04, 2012, 10:36:13 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 04, 2012, 12:58:51 AM
Tamara,

Sometime over the next seven years or so, have someone by complete surprise give you the command to go...then participate in a high speed vehicle pursuit for a few miles.  After the suspect rams your car and flees on foot, jump out in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar neigborhood, chase the suspect through backyards, kiddie pools, clotheslines, and various fences.  Then, when he turns and reaches into his pants....and you are convinced that the suspect is about to attempt to hurt you..shoot the moving target at twenty yards.  Let me know how your marksmanship measures up.

Again, until you have walked a mile in those shoes...

Um..still doesn't answer my question.

ill bet you ten dollars that he doesn't answer the question--as asked--in the next month, tamara.

The question itself is kryptonite to him. ;)

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 04, 2012, 10:36:13 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 04, 2012, 12:58:51 AM
Tamara,

Sometime over the next seven years or so, have someone by complete surprise give you the command to go...then participate in a high speed vehicle pursuit for a few miles.  After the suspect rams your car and flees on foot, jump out in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar neigborhood, chase the suspect through backyards, kiddie pools, clotheslines, and various fences.  Then, when he turns and reaches into his pants....and you are convinced that the suspect is about to attempt to hurt you..shoot the moving target at twenty yards.  Let me know how your marksmanship measures up.

Again, until you have walked a mile in those shoes...

Um..still doesn't answer my question.

I will answer.  Because he is not perfect.  In a life and death situation... no one is... even Stephen.  They practice often... and qualify to the standards set.

Perhaps she could describe the "crappy shooting techniques".  her question implies that he did not know what he was doing.  He missed... a moving target... in a stressful situation.  Pretty easy to understand... for most.

Quote from: stephendare on July 04, 2012, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 04, 2012, 02:45:25 PM
Perhaps she could describe the "crappy shooting techniques".  her question implies that he did not know what he was doing.  He missed... a moving target... in a stressful situation.  Pretty easy to understand... for most.

hmm.  so no.  you can't answer her question --as asked --either then?

lol... her question... as asked... is unanswerable.  Perhaps a better question would be... How could an officer with x nimber of years on the force miss x number of times at an evading target?  Her question assumes "bad technique".  Does she have some inside knowledge?  Is she privvy to his scores at the range?  Does she know someone who heard from a friend that the officer needs glasses?

Quote from: stephendare on July 04, 2012, 03:14:29 PM
so shooting at an unknown person from behind and running on foot in the dark sounds like good shooter decision making to you?

In your scenario... no.  In the below scenario... yes.

QuoteA Jacksonville sheriff's officer shot at a man eight times overnight after he refused to pull over and then ran from police in Northwest Jacksonville, police said.

Police were called to Lem Turner Road and Trout River Boulevard early Tuesday morning because of the police-involved shooting that left the unidentified man hospitalized.

Jacksonville Sheriff''s Office Chief John Hartley said deputies tried to pull over a maroon Garnet Chevy Monte Carlo with license plate No. 449JLL for suspicious activity, but the vehicle fled, which started a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood.

The driver went through two homeowners' yards and then backed into a JSO cruiser, police said. The chase ended at the corner of Greenleaf Road and Doncaster Avenue, in the front yard of a home.

Quote from: stephendare on July 04, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
hmm... tamara's question:

How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?

Bridge Troll's answer:

Because he is not perfect.  In a life and death situation... no one is... even Stephen.  They practice often... and qualify to the standards set.

not sure what my level or lack of perfection has to do with Tamara's question, or if it answers it for her.

Does it Tamara?

Lol, unless you're the cop who was there that night Stephen.  ;)

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

Quote from: NotNow on July 05, 2012, 03:43:55 AM
Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You pass it off like it's rocket science, NotNow. I'm not sure anyone has to be expertly qualified to understand the danger to the public created by certain police activity, in this case sending live rounds flying through a residential neigborhood. It seems pretty basic frankly. If you can't shoot a guy (unarmed, in the back, and while he's running away, mind you) without shooting up a residential neighborhood, then maybe you ought to consider, uh, not doing it?

My issue with these debates has been, and always will be, public safety. You already had the guy's car, not like you couldn't figure out who he was, just let the idiot run off and then get a warrant and pick him up later. Again, not sure I have to be a rocket-scientist to come to that conclusion. I mean, what are you afraid he's gonna do in the time before you catch him, shoot up a neighborhood? lol

Quote from: NotNow on July 05, 2012, 03:43:55 AM
Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You don't have to apologize, my friend! I'm cool. You're right btw, I'm not an expert. Though I don't recall my saying I was one. So...maybe I should change my major from communications to gun-shooting so I can be an expert like "everyone else who seems to be" as you said.  ;)

I would be very interested to hear about my alternative, not now.

Please tell us all about it.

I have already heard it.  Why don't you give your own answers for a change.

btw, in your 'expert' opinion.  Does chasing after an unarmed guy, fleeing in the dark qualify as a 'gunfight'?

As has been stated ad nauseum, what matters both practically and as a matter of law is the perception of the (in this case) Officer.  If he/she reasonably feels a threat to life or great bodily injury by the actions of the suspect, then yes, it is still a gunfight.

I may be completely mistaken, since I do not possess your superior intellectual powers and awesome prowess with guns and what not, but don't these 'gunfights' you speak of normally include guns on both sides?

Well, I do possess education, training, and experience that you obviously do not....and no, gunfights do not 'always' require a gun on each side.  EVERY fight a police officer gets into involves a gun, with all of the attendant risks and required training.

Does this extend to matters of wildlife as well?

For example, when a hunter shoots a deer, can he legitimately claim to have 'won' the 'gunfight'?

Is it possible for the deer to win one of these gunfights occasionally?

The next time a deer commits a felony, leads me on a high speed pursuit and following foot chase and then performs an action that puts me in fear for my life, I'll let you know.   (This is the kind of silliness that makes it so obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about.)

Please enlighten us.  Your posts on the subject are clearly so well thought out!

Thanks.[

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 05, 2012, 09:35:20 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 05, 2012, 03:43:55 AM
Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municipal policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You pass it off like it's rocket science, NotNow. I'm not sure anyone has to be expertly qualified to understand the danger to the public created by certain police activity, in this case sending live rounds flying through a residential neighborhood. It seems pretty basic frankly. If you can't shoot a guy (unarmed, in the back, and while he's running away, mind you) without shooting up a residential neighborhood, then maybe you ought to consider, uh, not doing it?

My issue with these debates has been, and always will be, public safety. You already had the guy's car, not like you couldn't figure out who he was, just let the idiot run off and then get a warrant and pick him up later. Again, not sure I have to be a rocket-scientist to come to that conclusion. I mean, what are you afraid he's gonna do in the time before you catch him, shoot up a neighborhood? lol

Why do you believe that the car belonged to the suspect?  (It did not)
Why do you believe that "live rounds flew through a residential neighborhood?  (The background was not discussed in the news story)

There is no way that months of training (no, not rocket science...just basic police work like pursuits and use of force) or especially years of experience can be condensed into a paragraph or two on a forum such as this.  Can you explain a subject of tax law sufficiently here?  Suffice it to say that there is much more to a high speed pursuit than just having an Officer decide he/she wants to chase someone.  And while Officers are trained to consider background and public safety, the average police shooting is something like seven rounds inside of 5 yards in about one second.  Survival must come first, no matter how PC we want it to be. 

The Officer in this case was chasing a felon, who had already placed civilians in danger and assaulted Police Officers.  The Officer correctly gave chase to the unknown felon, and when he felt reasonably threatened by the actions of the suspect (in spite of repeated vocal warnings by the Officers), he defended himself.  Thank God we still have men and women like that protecting us.  I feel sorry for you that you seem unable to understand this.

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 05, 2012, 10:31:07 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 05, 2012, 03:43:55 AM
Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You don't have to apologize, my friend! I'm cool. You're right btw, I'm not an expert. Though I don't recall my saying I was one. So...maybe I should change my major from communications to gun-shooting so I can be an expert like "everyone else who seems to be" as you said.  ;)

It takes a little more than a change of major Tamara.  But I forgive you for your youthful ignorance.

Quote from: NotNow on July 05, 2012, 11:32:25 AM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 05, 2012, 10:31:07 AM

Quote from: NotNow on July 05, 2012, 03:43:55 AM
Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You don't have to apologize, my friend! I'm cool. You're right btw, I'm not an expert. Though I don't recall my saying I was one. So...maybe I should change my major from communications to gun-shooting so I can be an expert like "everyone else who seems to be" as you said.  ;)

It takes a little more than a change of major Tamara.  But I forgive you for your youthful ignorance.

I understand it hasn't anything to do with my major, that's why I was being sarcastic when I said it.

Your forgiveness means about as much to me as jury duty.

:o

The fact is the Jacksonville Sheriff's officers have shot and often killed a large number of unarmed people over the years and I cannot remember any of them ever being convicted of using unnecessary violence. 
The frequency with which they shoot people, mostly people of color, is regrettable as is the lack of concern about unintended consequences such as shooting an innocent bystander and loss of community trust. 

Quote from: tayana42 on July 06, 2012, 12:04:33 AM
The fact is the Jacksonville Sheriff's officers have shot and often killed a large number of unarmed people over the years and I cannot remember any of them ever being convicted of using unnecessary violence. 
The frequency with which they shoot people, mostly people of color, is regrettable as is the lack of concern about unintended consequences such as shooting an innocent bystander and loss of community trust.

I am not trying to justify any police involved shooting, but people of color are involved in a disproportional percentage of crimes compared to their percentage of the general population.  It stands to reason that there would be a correlation when it comes to police shootings. 

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 21, 2010, 04:46:59 PM
http://www.news4jax.com/news/26203064/detail.html

QuotePolice Officer Shoots At Man 8 Times
Police: Man Led Police On Chase, Refused To Stop

POSTED: Tuesday, December 21, 2010
UPDATED: 3:01 pm EST December 21, 2010

Police investigate an officer-involved shooting at the intersection of Lem Turner Road and Trout River Boulevard.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Jacksonville sheriff's officer shot at a man eight times overnight after he refused to pull over and then ran from police in Northwest Jacksonville, police said.

Police were called to Lem Turner Road and Trout River Boulevard early Tuesday morning because of the police-involved shooting that left the unidentified man hospitalized.

Jacksonville Sheriff''s Office Chief John Hartley said deputies tried to pull over a maroon Garnet Chevy Monte Carlo with license plate No. 449JLL for suspicious activity, but the vehicle fled, which started a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood.

The driver went through two homeowners' yards and then backed into a JSO cruiser, police said. The chase ended at the corner of Greenleaf Road and Doncaster Avenue, in the front yard of a home.

Video: Man Shot Running From Traffic Stop
The driver got out of the car and ran from officers. Officers yelled at him to stop, but he didn't, police said.

Officer A.J. Givens said he saw something metallic at the man's waistband as the man was reaching for that area, so police gave more commands for the man to stop. When he didn't stop, Givens fired eight times, Hartley said.

The man was shot in the lower back and was taken to Shands Jacksonville Medical Center in critical but stable condition. Police said they did not find a gun, but did find drugs on the man.

Police said the man was hit by the gunfire once. Hartley said the gun was fired numerous times because officers are trained to shoot until no longer threatened.

Givens, who has been with the Sheriff's Office for about four years, has been placed on paid administrative leave, as is standard procedure for any police-involved shooting.

Residents who were upset about the shooting were planning a protest in the Sherwood neighborhood Tuesday afternoon.

So the guy was unarmed and running away, that clearly calls for shooting him in the back 8 times?

NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY! ;)

This thread is so old, the guy fleeing has forgiven the shooter.

From half a decade ago, wow...The axe blade is very sharp...