JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A suspect was shot by a police officer after a pursuit Sunday evening in the Springfield area, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
Investigators said at about 5:48, a red Chevrolet Camaro that was used in a previous shooting in April was spotted by officers. After police attempted to stop the driver, he drove away.
A police officer spotted the car on Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway. He called for assistance, and the officers tried to stop the vehicle. The vehicle continued into the Moncrief area at a high rate of speed, then drove into Springfield.
The man reach Ionia Street when another officer, T.I. Landerville, was traveling on Liberty Street. The man turned west on 9th Street and the officer turned east onto 9th. The man hit the officer head on, disabling the cruiser.
IMG_0038 Cropped_1463956785577.jpg
The man's car went into a building. That's when investigators said the officer got out of the cruiser and approached him.
"The police officer was giving commands to the suspect who was in the car, the suspect did not obey the commands, he got out of the car and something happened to cause the officer to un-holster his weapon and to shoot the suspect," Chief Chris Butler said.
Police said the officer fired the gun five times, but they're still investigating how many times the suspect was hit and where. That man's injuries are said to be life-threatening. He is at UF Health Jacksonville.
The officer involved in the crash was also taken to the hospital for injuries described as minor and has since been released.
A second press conference on the incident will be held at 10 a.m. Monday.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/officer-involved-shooting-in-springfield
from facebook:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/police%20shooting.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/police%20shooting.jpg.html)
Well, it would seem completely reasonable for any witness to not speak with the media until the police have completed their investigation of the scene.
News crews were at the location most of the day.
QuoteJACKSONVILLE, Fla. - The 22-year-old man shot by a police officer Sunday afternoon had just led officers on 3.7-mile high-speed chase and appears to have intentionally struck the officer's cruiser on a Springfield street, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
Vernell Bing Jr. was shot once in the side of the head and remains in intensive care at UF Health Jacksonville.
More Jacksonville Headlines
Police pursuit ends in crash, suspect shot
JSO Chief Chris Butler said no gun was found on Bing or in his car.
Butler said Bing was in a red Chevrolet Camaro that was wanted in connection with an April shootout was spotted Sunday afternoon in Northwest Jacksonville. After the collision, the Camaro's metrics showed it was going 53 mph and not braking when it struck Officer Tyler Landreville's oncoming cruiser on 9th Street.
Landreville's cruiser was disabled and Bing's car left the road and struck a building. Butler said Landreville got out of his car and walked toward the Camaro without pulling his weapon and ordering the man, who was out of his car, to surrender. Butler said something caused Landreville to pull his gun and fire five times, one bullet striking Bing.
Butler said he wasn't sure exactly what was said, and because the JSO is not allowed to interview Landreville until the State Attorney's Office completes its investigation to see if the shooting was justified, police are asking witnesses of the shooting to call 904-630-0500.
Butler acknowledged reports circulating in the community that Bing was shot five times or in the back as he was running away, the facts show Bing was shot once in the side of his head.
"We want exactly what the community wants; we want a thorough investigation," Butler said. "With your help, we can make sure any witnesses that might be out there come forward and give us that information."
Landreville is a seven-year veteran of the Sheriff's Office. Butler said this was his first officer-involved shooting.
Bing has a previous history with police, having been arrested for car theft, resisting arrest, burglary, trespassing, falsifying his identity and driving without a license.
In the wake of the seventh police-involved shooting of the year, several civil rights leaders have renewed their call for body cameras. Butler said Sheriff Mike Williams is in favor of body cameras, but wants to ensure there is adequate funding and administration in place before using them.
Events leading up to the shooting
Bing and red Camaro wanted
On May 13, police released this photo of a man and a red Camaro wanted in connection with a shooting April 16 at the 11th Street Tire Shop.
Police said Landreville spotted the Camaro wanted in an April shooting on Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway. He called for assistance, and the officers tried to stop the vehicle. The vehicle continued into the Moncrief area at a high rate of speed, then drove into Springfield, police said.
The Camero reached Ionia Street when Landreville was traveling on Liberty Street. The man turned west on 9th Street and the officer turned east onto 9th. The man hit the officer head on, disabling the cruiser, police said.
The man's car went into a building. That's when Landreville got out of the cruiser and approached him.
Bing's injuries were said to be life-threatening.
Landreville was also taken to the hospital for injuries from the accident, was treated and released.
A man who said he witnessed the shooting told News4Jax the officer the man was limping as he was trying to get away.
"(The officer) was no more than three or four feet away from him," Eric Coleman said. "He could have tackled the man instead of shooting him, but he chose to shoot this man."
Coleman went on to say that once the suspect was hit and fell to the ground, the officer "shot him three or four more times."
Chief Butler reiterated that Bing was only hit by one bullet.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/officer-involved-shooting-in-springfield_
Vigil/protest being held now at the corner of Liberty and 9th.
Several women are holding up hand made signs which read "SAVE OUR SONS". A handful of supporters surround them on the NW corner.
Press is there.
And standing a half a block away is a JSO car.
Is it wrong that I don't find this particularly newsworthy?
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Is it wrong that I don't find this particularly newsworthy?
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
Yeah. Its wrong. The man was unarmed. And the fleeing was more like a limping along.
QuoteSuspect in Sunday's police-involved shooting has died; incident sparks concerns from civil rights groups
22-year-old suspect has died
Headlines by FeedBurner
The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said Monday that 22-year-old Vernell Charles Bing was shot one time in the side of the head by a police officer following a chase and crash Sunday and was brain dead. His family said he has since died.
Two leading civil rights organizations have issued statements concerning the shooting in the 300 block of East Ninth Street near Liberty Street. The local NAACP said it is concerned about "potential excessive" force in this and other police-involved incidents recently.
Bing was shot just before 6 p.m. Sunday after he apparently fled following a car chase that ended with a crash with a patrol car on East Ninth Street in Springfield, according to police. The officer also was taken to the hospital as a precaution, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
Neighbors said gunfire erupted after the fleeing red convertible Camaro hit the patrol car head-on before slamming into the side of a building at East Ninth and Liberty streets. The Camaro driver was shot after he bailed out of the car and limped away, residents said.
Officer T.L. Landreville fired five shots, according to Sheriff's Office Chief Chris Butler.
Eric Coleman, who lives near where the chase ended and the shooting occurred, said the suspect seemed disoriented when he got out of the Camaro after.
"He was limping. Not really running. Not really walking, just limping. And the police officer hopped out of his car moving pretty fast," Coleman said.
Coleman said the officer fired a shot and the suspect, who he said did not appear to have a gun, fell to the ground. It appeared he had been shot in the back, he said.
"After the suspect fell, he continued to shoot," Coleman said of the officer. "I'd say he shot him about four or five more times."
Bing shows up on the jail's website as being absentee-booked Sunday on a charge of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. He's had three other minor arrests in Jacksonville, jail records show.
Jacksonville NAACP President Isaiah Rumlin issued a brief statement about the shooting. While saying the Jacksonville NAACP looks forward to continuing its work with the Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Mike Williams, "... we have great concern as it relates to the potential excessive use of force incidents involving multiple" officers over recent weeks. Rumlin said he is looking for a thorough investigation that will "reveal the truth of these incidents."
The Southern Christian Leadership Conference issued a more detailed statement as well, saying that it feels that the circumstances surrounding Sunday's shooting are "clearly questionable."
"The questionable means by which black men are shot down in the streets will not be tolerated," the letter quotes Southern Christian Leadership Conference board chairman Juan P. Gray. "The citizens of our city need some means of accountability of the JSO."
Gray said that the board refuses to rush to judgment but added that the main issues are "police accountability and the blatant distrust that exist between the police and the people they are sworn to serve and protect."
He also pointed out that some eyewitness accounts differ from what police have announced so far. Those include police "still trying to explain why a police veteran shot an unarmed man" and that witnesses say police could have handled this incident without deadly force since they said that the injured suspect was limping away from the crash site when he was shot.
In light of this shooting, the group's letter stated that a "broad range of community activists" are pushing for greater police accountability, while the Southern Christian Leadership Conference supports an immediate establishment of a citizens advisory panel to review "all questionable police shootings," the letter said.
"This panel is needed because all previous internal police reviews have been biased," Gray's letter said. "Those reviews have always substantiated police shootings as justifiable and we simply do not believe that to be true."
The group also is calling for the deployment of body cams on some police officers, adding that Sunday's police shooting was a "classic case where police body cams could have provided much needed and valuable footage."
Of Jacksonville's seven officer-involved shootings this year, five of the suspects have been black. The only fatal police shooting was May 14's Cody Nathanael Marsh, a white 19-year-old suicidal man who was waving knives and charging at officers near a downtown McDonald's.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2016-05-23/story/sundays-police-involved-shooting-sparks-concern-jacksonville-civil#
Quote from: sheclown on May 23, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
And the fleeing was more like a limping along.
The original fleeing in the car.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 23, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
And the fleeing was more like a limping along.
The original fleeing in the car.
I didn't realize "fleeing" carried a death sentence.
Quote from: sheclown on May 23, 2016, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 23, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
And the fleeing was more like a limping along.
The original fleeing in the car.
I didn't realize "fleeing" carried a death sentence.
I never insinuated anything of the sort.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
...And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting...
But in light of yet another preventable tragedy, maybe we could start another conversation.
Let's take your comment to another level.
"I didn't realize "fleeing" carried a death sentence." Well....
What if fleeing was grounds for police to use deadly force?
With the knowledge that police would immediately open fire with intent to kill, not just disable, if you tried to run away. Would that result in more or less shootings?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
I agree. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:
- JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month. Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
- In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle. Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
- Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise. Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot. Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot. It's that simple.
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 06:05:32 PM
Why stop there? Why not add food waste and climate change denialism to the list of capital offenses?
Other topics for other threads.
We all realize that nothing happens in a vacuum, but for this discussion, ceteris paribus - All else remains equal.
What are your personal feelings if the above were to be true?
In some of these instances, the cops have acted completely outside of the law; in some they've been provoked to beyond their own self-control; and in yet other situations, it truly seems that they've acted justifiably and within the realm of their rules.
I'm not asking anyone to take a stance or the latest tragedy, but to actually get some raw, human thoughts, since it's still fresh, on a what if scenario....
Quote from: CMG22 on May 23, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
I agree. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:
- JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month. Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
- In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle. Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
- Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise. Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot. Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot. It's that simple.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 07:41:07 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 23, 2016, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: CMG22 on May 23, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
I agree. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:
- JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month. Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
- In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle. Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
- Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise. Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot. Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot. It's that simple.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
don't you celebrate every time one of your poorer neighbors is killed though?
Are you saying this young man was poor? If so, how was that conclusion reached?
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 07:34:04 PM
Well, I have to consider the cops point of view on this one...
You have to consider both sides in nearly every single one of these events which is why I posed the question.
The majority of stops go without incident. You get blue-lighted, the cop does his thing, and everyone goes about their day afterwards.
The majority of these shootings occur AFTER a suspect flees the scene and is caught.
Would someone be less inclined to go rabbit if they knew for a fact that they'd be chased with bullets?
Just an alternative way to look at it.
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: camarocane on May 23, 2016, 08:29:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 07:41:07 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 23, 2016, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: CMG22 on May 23, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
I agree. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:
- JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month. Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
- In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle. Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
- Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise. Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot. Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot. It's that simple.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
don't you celebrate every time one of your poorer neighbors is killed though?
Are you saying this young man was poor? If so, how was that conclusion reached?
"Bing has a previous history with police, having been arrested for car theft, resisting arrest, burglary, trespassing, falsifying his identity and driving without a license."
So you're postulating that a history of crime would equate to being poor? Maybe being poor would lead to a history of crime, correct?
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 07:34:04 PM
Well, I have to consider the cops point of view on this one...
You have to consider both sides in nearly every single one of these events which is why I posed the question.
The majority of stops go without incident. You get blue-lighted, the cop does his thing, and everyone goes about their day afterwards.
The majority of these shootings occur AFTER a suspect flees the scene and is caught.
Would someone be less inclined to go rabbit if they knew for a fact that they'd be chased with bullets?
Just an alternative way to look at it.
I think thats the way that most kidnappers look at it as well.
Diluting the conversation? You can do better than that.
Quote from: camarocane on May 23, 2016, 08:29:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 07:41:07 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 23, 2016, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: CMG22 on May 23, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
I agree. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:
- JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month. Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
- In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle. Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
- Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise. Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot. Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot. It's that simple.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
don't you celebrate every time one of your poorer neighbors is killed though?
Are you saying this young man was poor? If so, how was that conclusion reached?
He's also not a neighbor. He happened to crash in SPR.
Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2016, 07:34:04 PM
But from the looks of it, the cop car hit him from behind, which I think would be less of a reason to believe that the cop was acting reasonably. And Im not sure if I can figure out how the car being chased was able to crash 'head on' into the front of the police car.
Quote from: sheclown on May 23, 2016, 07:48:40 AM
The man reach Ionia Street when another officer, T.I. Landerville, was traveling on Liberty Street. The man turned west on 9th Street and the officer turned east onto 9th. The man hit the officer head on, disabling the cruiser.
Many of the "facts" expressed here are not very sound. I feel it is just plain wrong to spread untruths as fact.
This is devastating to all the families involved and our neighborhood.
Play in the dirt, you get dirty
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 02:16:45 AM
No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.
OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic.
Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white: If you run, you will be shot.
So we're taking Bentham out of the equation, he should have never been there to begin with. There is no longer a balancing act of pain and happiness between the mourning community and the ones rejoicing because a 'criminal' has been removed from the streets. (Utilitarianism right? It's been a while)
If you would like to use a set of laws, I think Newton's third would be more appropriate.
This evade/elude mentality IMO is a causation for many of these unnecessary shootings, while I think many believe the opposite: they believe they might get shot, so they run.
So with that thought in mind, I strongly believe that by strongly (mortally) discouraging the behavior, it would result in less of the situations we continue to read about.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 10:41:30 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 02:16:45 AM
No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.
OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic.
Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white: If you run, you will be shot.
That's basically imposing a death sentence without a trial.
Quote from: Adam White on May 24, 2016, 10:46:18 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 10:41:30 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 02:16:45 AM
No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.
OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic.
Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white: If you run, you will be shot.
That's basically imposing a death sentence without a trial.
I understand that. Read back to the beginning to get some context of where this is coming from.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 24, 2016, 10:46:18 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 10:41:30 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 02:16:45 AM
No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.
OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic.
Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white: If you run, you will be shot.
That's basically imposing a death sentence without a trial.
I understand that. Read back to the beginning to get some context of where this is coming from.
I've been reading the thread from the beginning.
So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense.
The questions still remains: Overall, would there be less shootings?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 11:02:42 AM
So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense.
The questions still remains: Overall, would there be less shootings?
I don't think it would make a substantive difference. Capital punishment has not been shown to work as a deterrent (as far as I am aware) and I reckon people will always flee.
That said - if you somehow were able to do an end run around the Constitution and allow cops to consider fleeing a capital offence, the people would revolt.
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 11:02:42 AM
So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense.
The questions still remains: Overall, would there be less shootings?
judging from the past three years of cops shooting people, would you say that there has been a slowdown in people fleeing the cops?
Or would you say that a more lethal police force is itself a driving reason why people might flee?
That's exactly the conundrum that I mentioned a few posts ago. Personally, I see the fleeing as a cause, but I also understand how many see it as an effect. It's also why I posited the scenario that I did.
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 12:03:08 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 11:56:00 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 11:02:42 AM
So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense.
The questions still remains: Overall, would there be less shootings?
judging from the past three years of cops shooting people, would you say that there has been a slowdown in people fleeing the cops?
Or would you say that a more lethal police force is itself a driving reason why people might flee?
That's exactly the conundrum that I mentioned a few posts ago. Personally, I see the fleeing as a cause, but I also understand how many see it as an effect. It's also why I posited the scenario that I did.
Thats evasive, you asked a 'what if' question, that has been actually tried for the past couple of years. Do you see a slowdown in fleeing?
It hasn't been 'tried'. I can only think of one case in my recent memory when a fleeing suspect was shot dead. It was in SC and the officer was charged with a crime. (Update) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/11/former-north-charleston-officer-who-shot-walter-scott-indicted-on-federal-civil-rights-violation/) The other high-profile cases that come to mind were under completely different circumstances.
Which again begs a repeat of my original question: If Mr. Scott had known, for a fact, that he would have been shot dead the moment he turned and ran, would he have still done it?
And to answer yours: I truly don't know. I only know what I see in the media, and unfortunately if a fleeing case doesn't end in tragedy, then it probably doesn't get reported.
Scenes from 9th and liberty this morning.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/protest3.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/protest3.jpg.html)
The Memorial
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/protest%201.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/protest%201.jpg.html)
The family.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/protest2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/protest2.jpg.html)
The New Black Panthers have organized a protest which will begin at 2:00 at City Hall
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5404.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5404.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5437.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5437.jpg.html)
"our children are hungry"
These are their demands:
1.) JSO transparency, including a call for car cams and body cams
2.) Arrest of JSO officer
3.) The witnesses accounts taken seriously
4.) An independent investigation
5.) A look into all questionable cases and JSO's relationship with the black community.
They do not blame JSO but they blame the system. They blame the state's attorney.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5431.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5431.jpg.html)
This is being organized by The Kemetic Empire. A justice organization.
http://www.thekemeticempire.com/
The organization was established in 2003 by Diallo-Sekou. For several years the group has been involved with social issues in Jacksonville, fl. Savanna, Ga to Ferguson, Missouri. The group has self-published books, sponsored Lectures & Dvd's. The Kemetic Empire believes in a strong and consistent presence in the community. If we are to insure the youth we believe in them and we are here for them, we cannot be fleeting in our efforts to liberate them out of disadvantage to the empowerment arena. It is our efforts to build sustainable concepts while extracting the negative conditions hampering the community we are set in. It's important the This group has strong partnership and relationships with the people and organizations who want to change the poor conditions to a better one. Our strongest partnership today is the non-profit Urban-Geoponics. They are making great stride on the agriculture side of things.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5412.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5412.jpg.html)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 12:03:08 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 11:56:00 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 24, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 24, 2016, 11:02:42 AM
So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense.
The questions still remains: Overall, would there be less shootings?
judging from the past three years of cops shooting people, would you say that there has been a slowdown in people fleeing the cops?
Or would you say that a more lethal police force is itself a driving reason why people might flee?
That's exactly the conundrum that I mentioned a few posts ago. Personally, I see the fleeing as a cause, but I also understand how many see it as an effect. It's also why I posited the scenario that I did.
Thats evasive, you asked a 'what if' question, that has been actually tried for the past couple of years. Do you see a slowdown in fleeing?
It hasn't been 'tried'. I can only think of one case in my recent memory when a fleeing suspect was shot dead. It was in SC and the officer was charged with a crime. (Update) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/11/former-north-charleston-officer-who-shot-walter-scott-indicted-on-federal-civil-rights-violation/) The other high-profile cases that come to mind were under completely different circumstances.
Which again begs a repeat of my original question: If Mr. Scott had known, for a fact, that he would have been shot dead the moment he turned and ran, would he have still done it?
And to answer yours: I truly don't know. I only know what I see in the media, and unfortunately if a fleeing case doesn't end in tragedy, then it probably doesn't get reported.
Since there is some question of it, I can tell you that people flee from the police on a daily (and often multiple times a day) basis, be it in a car, on foot, bike, etc.
Protest at 6 pm at 9th and Liberty. TV truck's been there for a good part of the afternoon.
Guys in suits hanging around -- not locals -- not city officials.
QuoteIn the wake of the seventh police-involved shooting of the year, several civil rights leaders have renewed their call for body cameras. Butler said Sheriff Mike Williams is in favor of body cameras but wants to ensure there is adequate funding and administration in place before using them.
QuoteStandard police procedures
Landreville was placed on administrative leave, which is standard while police-involved shootings are investigated. And for now, he can only answer questions from the State Attorney's Office.
"Police officers can't talk because it's under investigation," News4Jax crime and safety analyst Gil Smith said. "Usually when you have one side talking, when the public hears information coming from one side, you tend to side with those people because it's the only information that you're getting. And the fact that it's quiet gives appearance they're trying to hide something, but really it's just standard procedure."
Smith says Landreville will meet with an advocate to compile a statement of events.
"That's standard because it's such a traumatic situation. There is so much going on with the officer, emotionally," Smith said. "They found that when officers gave statements immediately and then when they have chance to calm down, they remember things differently."
Smith, a retired Jacksonville officer, said he believes the Sheriff's Office is being transparent since it admitted it has not found a weapon on or near the suspect and it is calling on more witnesses to come forward.
A few witnesses have given News4Jax accounts that conflict with preliminary police findings.
"The sticking point is what happened once they got out of the car. That's what's they're not sure about. That's what the investigation is going to lead to," Smith said. "Anyone who studies crime scene investigations knows the least reliable information is witness information. Not that the public is trying to be deceptive, but they might not have seen things the way they think that they did."
Smith said all parties involved should trust the investigative process of the state attorney and Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/officer-involved-shooting-in-springfield_
QuoteAs the State Attorney's Office begins its investigation into the shooting, Reggie Gaffney, city councilman for District 7, called for an independent investigation Monday at intersection of Liberty and 9th streets, where the shooting happened.
Gaffney said he plans to speak with Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams about the independent investigation. He also said he wants the Department of Justice to look into what happened.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/mom-of-man-shot-by-officer-you-took-my-boys-life
Quote
Community groups call for police transparency
Both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference issued statements calling for better police accountability and transparency.
"The questionable means by which black men are shot down in the streets will not be tolerated," wrote Ben Frazier, spokesman for the SCLC Southern Chapter. "We believe that this police shooting was a classic case where police body cameras could have have provided much needed and valuable footage."
According to the SCLC, over the past 12 years, 135 people have been shot by the JSO and 65 percent of those victims were black, even though only 34 percent of Jacksonville's population is black.
While all those incidents were investigated, every one of those shootings was considered justified.
"We have great concern as it relates to the potential excessive use of force involving Jacksonville officers," the NAACP wrote. "We are looking for a complete and thorough investigation."
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/mom-of-man-shot-by-officer-you-took-my-boys-life
QuoteYeah. Its wrong. The man was unarmed. And the fleeing was more like a limping along.
Some of the facts I heard:
1) Bing was driving a stolen car, which was wanted for a shooting incident another night
2) Bing led the JSO on the chase doing in excess of 50 mph on residential streets
3) Upon impact Bing fled the vehicle, and the JSO had to chase him
I hear you Stephen, you bring up a good point about, are the people fleeing more because of the JSO, but you and I were BOTH taught to listen to the police and do as they command. Respect them in the uniform. All those flashing lights behind his vehicle were not pizza deliveries trying to get to the next house, they were police and what do you do when you see emergency lights behind you? You pull over.
Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 25, 2016, 01:27:27 AM
Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.
I understand what you're saying, but you're basically blaming the victim.
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 04:35:54 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 25, 2016, 01:27:27 AM
Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.
I understand what you're saying, but you're basically blaming the victim.
Are you saying he is faultless?
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2016, 06:00:30 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 04:35:54 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 25, 2016, 01:27:27 AM
Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.
I understand what you're saying, but you're basically blaming the victim.
Are you saying he is faultless?
Working on the assumption that the facts, as stated earlier, are correct...
Yes. No unarmed person fleeing from the police should be shot and killed. That's like blaming the drunk girl for being raped at a frat party. Yes, maybe she engaged in irresponsible behavior, but no amount of irresponsibility on her part excuses the rapist's actions.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 25, 2016, 01:27:27 AM
QuoteYeah. Its wrong. The man was unarmed. And the fleeing was more like a limping along.
Some of the facts I heard:
1) Bing was driving a stolen car, which was wanted for a shooting incident another night
2) Bing led the JSO on the chase doing in excess of 50 mph on residential streets
3) Upon impact Bing fled the vehicle, and the JSO had to chase him
I hear you Stephen, you bring up a good point about, are the people fleeing more because of the JSO, but you and I were BOTH taught to listen to the police and do as they command. Respect them in the uniform. All those flashing lights behind his vehicle were not pizza deliveries trying to get to the next house, they were police and what do you do when you see emergency lights behind you? You pull over.
Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.
Exactly! Well said!
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 06:07:01 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2016, 06:00:30 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 04:35:54 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 25, 2016, 01:27:27 AM
Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.
I understand what you're saying, but you're basically blaming the victim.
Are you saying he is faultless?
Working on the assumption that the facts, as stated earlier, are correct...
Yes. No unarmed person fleeing from the police should be shot and killed. That's like blaming the drunk girl for being raped at a frat party. Yes, maybe she engaged in irresponsible behavior, but no amount of irresponsibility on her part excuses the rapist's actions.
So what exactly is a policeman who has been on a lengthy high speed chase with a suspect supposed to do? Stop and ask if the suspect has a weapon and risk getting shot himself? The police have a very difficult job to do. It's easy to judge when you are not in their position risking your life everyday. How about teaching our children to have respect for each other? Respect for yourself, respect for the law, etc.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Is it wrong that I don't find this particularly newsworthy?
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
BINGO!
Quote from: Popeye on May 25, 2016, 07:52:01 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 06:07:01 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2016, 06:00:30 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 04:35:54 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 25, 2016, 01:27:27 AM
Bing did not deserve to die, we learned that even though the officer, in the heat of the moment shot multiple times, he only landed 1, that ended Bing's life. Yeah, Bing had a record, still he did not deserve to die, but........if he had just pulled over and not exacerbated the situation, odds are he would still be alive.
I understand what you're saying, but you're basically blaming the victim.
Are you saying he is faultless?
Working on the assumption that the facts, as stated earlier, are correct...
Yes. No unarmed person fleeing from the police should be shot and killed. That's like blaming the drunk girl for being raped at a frat party. Yes, maybe she engaged in irresponsible behavior, but no amount of irresponsibility on her part excuses the rapist's actions.
So what exactly is a policeman who has been on a lengthy high speed chase with a suspect supposed to do? Stop and ask if the suspect has a weapon and risk getting shot himself? The police have a very difficult job to do. It's easy to judge when you are not in their position risking your life everyday. How about teaching our children to have respect for each other? Respect for yourself, respect for the law, etc.
Before I answer, I want to make the following caveat: I don't know what happened in this case and I think it's best to wait for an investigation outcome before jumping to conclusions.
Now, in general terms:
1) A policeman shouldn't shoot anyone unless he has reason to suspect his life is in danger or that the suspect is a danger to the public. A suspect running from a collision likely is not a threat to the public - but that depends on the nature of the preceding case. If the suspect was in a collision after, say, an armed carjacking or shooting someone, then that's possibly different. I would argue that, based on the 'facts' of this case as I understand them to be, there doesn't appear to be a compelling case in support of the police officer using deadly force (I am a bit of a hypocrite here, having started with a statement about not jumping to conclusions).
2) Police officers have been trained in this forever. Some make mistakes - after all, they're human. Not all cops shoot unarmed, fleeing suspects. In fact, most don't. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and that doesn't mean that the police officer is absolved of any responsibility.
3) Regarding your final point - respect for the law, etc. I don't see why you can't do that AND also expect cops not to shoot you if you run.
Quote from: stephendare on May 25, 2016, 09:06:51 AM
So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?
Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 09:34:20 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 25, 2016, 09:06:51 AM
So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?
Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".
As the parent of a policeman I respectfully disagree with you and Mr. Dare.
Quote from: stephendare on May 25, 2016, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: Popeye on May 25, 2016, 10:39:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 09:34:20 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 25, 2016, 09:06:51 AM
So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?
Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".
As the parent of a policeman I respectfully disagree with you and Mr. Dare.
You think we teach and show respect by killing people?
Would you say that this is the primary job of a policeman? Im not sure if I understand the context of you disagreeing as the parent of one.
Would you agree outside of that context?
Or are you trying to say something else?
I'm not trying to say anything other than my son is a police officer and as his mother I support him. I hope he is never put in a situation like the one discussed (although I know that he will) where he has to make a decision in the heat of the moment and have everyone judge him. Maybe I will run into you at the salon again and I can explain it better to you in person. Have a great day!
Quote from: Popeye on May 25, 2016, 10:39:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 25, 2016, 09:34:20 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 25, 2016, 09:06:51 AM
So do we show respect by killing people for minor crimes?
Or maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".
As the parent of a policeman I respectfully disagree with you and Mr. Dare.
For the record, I have no issue with the police. But I think poor policing on the part of individuals besmirches the reputation of law enforcement as a whole.
The point is that:
Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments may deprive any person "of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." - See more at: http://civilrights.uslegal.com/due-process-violation/#sthash.3NiafkDp.dpuf
In this case the defendant was deprived his due process.
Do I want people stealing cars and driving down residential streets where they can harm innocent people? Absolutely not. On the other hand, I also do not want to live in a society which does not allow a rather large percentage of its population constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
Quote from: sheclown on May 25, 2016, 11:20:16 AM
In this case the defendant was deprived his due process.
He didn't even get the chance to be a defendant :(
Quote from: jlmann on May 25, 2016, 11:30:22 AM
QuoteOr maybe for failure to "properly" navigate an unmarked "roundabout".
lol adam still talking about how hes wrong on 5 pts
lololololololololololololololololololololol
Quote from: sheclown on May 25, 2016, 11:20:16 AM
The point is that:
Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments may deprive any person "of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." - See more at: http://civilrights.uslegal.com/due-process-violation/#sthash.3NiafkDp.dpuf
In this case the defendant was deprived his due process.
Are you saying that the 'defendant' had no hand in depriving himself of due process in this case?
And don't read that as 'victim blaming', because it's not. This instance is the exception to traffic stops, not the rule. The odds of something bad happening increase everytime someone compounds one bad decision with another and another and another. So again, while I'm not in any way implying that the shooting was justifiable - I don't know. I wasn't there and I don't have access to the unfiltered facts of the case. What I am implying is that I'm growing tired of the cop blaming when the so-called 'victim's actions cause the situation to escalate.
Let me pose another question:
Would there be Civil Rights activists and protests over the incident if the officer had been killed in the crash or shot, or would it just be considered a tragedy and a 'job risk'?
I'm pretty sure there would not.
Quote from: stephendare on May 25, 2016, 12:05:42 PM
Um. not enough coffee yet this morning?
That's a trick question. Is it ever "enough"?
Not sure what you're getting at though.
Westsider -- there is a difference here. The officer is a government official. It is the government which shot the defendant without a trial . Unless, of course, it is determined to be not "justified" .
I spoke with the family today. It is this determination that they are waiting for.
In other words. Who shot Vernell Bing, Jr. ? The city of Jacksonville? Or an errant officer.
Quote from: sheclown on May 25, 2016, 12:25:40 PM
Westsider -- there is a difference here. The officer is a government official. It is the government which shot the defendant without a trial . Unless, of course, it is determined to be not "justified" .
I spoke with the family today. It is this determination that they are waiting for.
In other words. Who shot Vernell Bing, Jr. ? The city of Jacksonville? Or an errant officer.
Sheclown do you truly believe that the family really gives a damn whether or not the cop's actions are deemed 'justified'? It's not going to bring their son back.
The 'fact' that seems to continue to get glossed over is that Bing put HIMSELF in harms way. This isn't blaming Bing for pulling the trigger; but you can't ignore the fact that he had a tremendous part in escalating something routine into a front page news story.
The question that I keep seeing: "Did the cop have to shoot him?" needs to be replaced with something along the lines of: "If he had just pulled over would he still be here today?"
I say this from the viewpoint of someone who has had numerous encounters with LEOs. I have yet to be tazed, shot or otherwise 'roughed up' any more than I deserved. I have not always been particularly respectful, but I have never acted violently or tried to run away. Is it because I'm special
(feel free to read that as white male) or is there some other mysterious force at work here
(feel free to read that as owning my fuck-ups and accepting whatever consequence might come)?
Do I think the family cares about JUSTICE? Yeah. I do.
While I was speaking to the family, two men drove up and parked in the lot across the street. They appeared to be conducting an investigation -- they were looking at skid marks and walking back and forth across the street.
Quote from: stephendare on May 25, 2016, 01:25:00 PM
We got it. you like that this kid was killed. Because: Personal responsibility, apparently. So now he will never have the chance to be personally responsible.
Ambivalent would probably be a better description. Because: Personal responsibility. I can see both sides and don't totally agree or disagree with either, but I'm enjoying the continued dialogue in more of a devil's advocate type of role.
QuoteYou seem very intent on this, for reasons which I cannot fathom.
I just have a bit more time on my hands while procrasitinating on my current project. The topic is really irrelevant.
QuoteSo far in the thread, you've floated the old 'but if more kids were shot to death while fleeing, wouldn't that cut down on fleeing' canard.
Half true. I floated the new 'if people
knew they
were going to be shot to death
if they fleed, would that cut down on fleeing'
theory. But I appreciate your not-so-subtle attempt.
QuoteWhich is a theoretical question. When the question was put to you whether or not you have noticed any slowdown in fleeing despite high profile shootings of the capital offense fleeing class, you answered that the question was theoretical and you couldn't answer it.
When a cop weighed in and shared that fleeing is a very common occurrence, you seem to have lost all interest in the line of thinking.
Actually the discussion started moving in another direction and since my original question and subsequent follow-ups were doing nothing more than circling the drain, so I just went with it. No need to drive it back to the original circle when you can start creating more.
QuoteCan we pause for a moment and accept that no: gunning down fleeing people doesn't stop people from fleeing?
I can't accept that any more than I would accept that banning all guns (or having every single person carry) would stop people from getting shot.
Why? I'm so glad you asked.
Because:
QuoteBecause: People are not plants and can run from danger?
Quote from: Apache on May 25, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
This is the point. No, people would not stop fleeing. You are dealing with human emotion. If people are scared, they may run. Should they, no they shouldn't, but you can't control emotion sometimes. Some people can't get past the point that yes, sometimes you should let a criminal run away. They had the car, the kid was hurt, they would have found him.
It's a point as a conservative, I don't understand. There was a recent long discussion on nextdoor website about a car being stolen and so many chimed in that they would shoot anyone on their property trying to steal their car...so thieves better not step foot on their property...blah blah..SYG and all.
Look, I own many firearms, if I had to protect my family or myself, I would and I would live with that. Am I going to shoot some punk thief dead for trying to steal my vehicle or break into my garage, hell no. I don't want to live with that every time I fire up the Chevy.
Unless the cops life or immediate bystanders life is in danger, you either chase the crook on foot or let him go to catch him another day. May he hurt someone in the mean time. Slight possibility. But the risk/reward in killing a running crook as opposed to catching him later doesn't add up.
My fiancée and I had this same "what if" discussion yesterday. In all honesty, if I saw someone breaking into/stealing my car I wouldn't approach them. Much less approach them with the intent to kill. The law does not allow you to take a life unless your life or someone else's life it being threatened. Even if they broke into your attached garage, you have no right. However, if they enter your home, threat or no; you have the right to use deadly force.
I'll await more information before making a judgment because all we know is the following:
A. He had a criminal history
B. He had intent to kill and harm sometime before he ran
C. Where he was shot.
It would be helpful to know why the officer chose to shoot rather then pursue to begin with.
Did he feel threatened at the moment or moments before he pulled the trigger?
Did he feel that someone else's life with in immediate danger?
Was someone else's life with in immediate danger?
My personal feelings are you don't break the law. Right wrong or indifferent, you play with fire, sometimes you get burned.
There's a crowd of about 50 gathered at the corner of 9th and Liberty. Three blocks away are about ten patrol cars.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/995b7110-1c24-4bd8-8d5f-c79b024dff76.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/995b7110-1c24-4bd8-8d5f-c79b024dff76.jpg.html)
Everyone seems to be calm. A man with a bullhorn is making a plea for justice.
Here are the Florida guidelines for "hot pursuit":
http://archive.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb2046.html&Directory=session/2006/Senate/bills/billtext/html/
Section 1. (1)(a) A police department shall make
14 every reasonable effort to apprehend fleeing violators. Sworn
15 officers shall always consider the safety of the public when
16 responding to calls, pursuing violators, or conducting felony
17 stops. Officers shall always consider the dangers of a vehicle
18 pursuit in relation to the lives or property of innocent users
19 of the roadways, law enforcement employees, and the violator.
20 Officers deciding to give chase shall balance the need to stop
21 a suspect against the potential threat to everyone created by
22 the pursuit. It must be so important to apprehend the suspect
23 that officers are justified at placing an innocent third party
24 at risk of loss of life or property.
23 (c) "Reasonable suspicion" means that an officer must
24 be able to articulate specific facts which, when taken in the
25 totality of the circumstances, reasonably indicate that the
26 suspect did commit or has attempted to commit a violent
27 forcible felony.
-------------------------------------------------
(i) "Violent forcible felony" means any of the
4 following crimes:
5 1. Murder.
6 2. Manslaughter.
7 3. Armed robbery.
8 4. Armed sexual battery.
9 5. Arson to a structure reasonably believed to be
10 occupied.
11 6. Use of explosive devices to a structure reasonably
12 believed to be occupied.
13 7. Kidnapping.
14 8. Armed carjacking.
15 9. Burglary armed with a firearm.
16 10. Aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer
17 with a deadly weapon, including a firearm or edged weapon, but
18 excluding a motor vehicle.
19 11. Aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer
20 resulting in serious injury. An officer's having to move from
21 the path of a fleeing vehicle does not constitute an
22 aggravated assault, attempted murder, attempted aggravated
23 battery, or attempted manslaughter for the purposes of this
24 policy.
25 (3)(a) Officers may engage in a pursuit when they have
26 a reasonable suspicion that a fleeing suspect has committed or
27 has attempted to commit a violent forcible felony. Pursuits
28 for any other reason are prohibited.
I just returned from talking to the protesters at 9th and Liberty.
We spoke about neighborhood concerns regarding language and noise -- specifically bull horn use. I believe they are sympathetic to these concerns but also committed to expressing their outrage and grief.
I was told that several children had witnessed the shooting and they are concerned about the lasting trauma of that experience.
When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.
Quote from: CG7 on May 26, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.
The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.
This is really not that complicated...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 26, 2016, 02:30:07 PM
Quote from: CG7 on May 26, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.
The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.
This is really not that complicated...
You'd think, but it appears to seriously elude some people.
Quote from: Adam White on May 26, 2016, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 26, 2016, 02:30:07 PM
Quote from: CG7 on May 26, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.
The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.
This is really not that complicated...
You'd think, but it appears to seriously elude some people.
Should it be a consequence? No. But when you put yourself in harm's way, bad things can (and do) happen.
From recent memory of a tragedy that only happened due to fleeing (First result):
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/activists-call-for-independent-investigation-of-pond-crash-that-killed/2275079
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 26, 2016, 02:47:10 PM
Quote from: Adam White on May 26, 2016, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 26, 2016, 02:30:07 PM
Quote from: CG7 on May 26, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.
The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.
This is really not that complicated...
You'd think, but it appears to seriously elude some people.
Should it be a consequence? No. But when you put yourself in harm's way, bad things can (and do) happen.
From recent memory of a tragedy that only happened due to fleeing (First result):
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/activists-call-for-independent-investigation-of-pond-crash-that-killed/2275079
I have a friend who is constable with the Bedfordshire Police. He works in Luton, which is basically a shit hole. Anyway, one day he and another officer were in their car and suddenly a car in front of them took off when the driver noticed the cops. So they chased him. They guy started driving dangerously and hit a few cars and even drove up onto the pavement to escape. So they backed off and gave up the chase.
British cops kill people in error, too. But I think there is a massive difference in approach. Probably something to do with this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent
This case really is simple. If this person didn't try to kill a police officer, he would probably still be alive. The running isn't what got him shot. Trying to kill another human being got him shot.
Quote from: CG7 on May 26, 2016, 03:09:03 PM
This case really is simple. If this person didn't try to kill a police officer, he would probably still be alive. The running isn't what got him shot. Trying to kill another human being got him shot.
You don't know that the suspect intentionally hit the police officer. You also don't know, if he did do it intentionally, that he did it with the intent to kill the police officer. And you don't know why the guy who shot him pulled the trigger.
So it's not so "simple". Or at least we don't yet know enough about it to make those sort of statements.
Quote from: CG7 on May 26, 2016, 03:09:03 PM
This case really is simple. If this person didn't try to kill a police officer, he would probably still be alive. The running isn't what got him shot. Trying to kill another human being got him shot.
Sure. Cut and dry.
As I've said multiple times, I can see both sides. And if you read the list provided by Sheclown, you'll see that a vehicle isn't considered a deadly weapon when it's used in an attempt to run over a cop (I learned something today, thanks). That, along with the fact that no where have I read that Bing had a weapon, doesn't lead me to believe that this is as simple as some would like it to be, and why I personally don't have a blanket opinion everytime I read about these types of things.
These 'facts' when coupled with the Bing's actions are why I'm hold him just as culpable. Did he 'deserve' to die? No; Did his actions and his lack of judgement play a huge role in contributing to the factors that led to his death? In my mind, without a doubt.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 26, 2016, 03:22:16 PM
Did his actions and his lack of judgement play a huge role in contributing to the factors that led to his death? In my mind, without a doubt.
I don't disagree with you there.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,
and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon".
QuoteUnder U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
There is actually a "fleeing felons rule".
Quote from: sheclown on May 26, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,
and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon".
A or B. Both are not required. They appear to apply to case number 3 only. But to justify the use of any force, one of the conditions set out in 1 - 3 would have to be met. As far as "felon" is concerned, I'd need to see how that is defined for the purposes of the statute, though I assume it means people who have been convicted of felonies (and in that case applies to 2 and/or 3 above).
I would assume that the defence offered would be that the police officer reasonably believed that he had to defend the public (as the suspect was driving a car linked to a murder and fled when confronted - and possibly attempted to harm another officer with his car). He might also say he thought the suspect was reaching for a weapon. Which might be reasonable - but it's hard to say in the absence of any further information.
That's just my take.
Quote from: Adam White on May 26, 2016, 05:08:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 26, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,
and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon".
A or B. Both are not required. They appear to apply to case number 3 only. But to justify the use of any force, one of the conditions set out in 1 - 3 would have to be met. As far as "felon" is concerned, I'd need to see how that is defined for the purposes of the statute, though I assume it means people who have been convicted of felonies (and in that case applies to 2 and/or 3 above).
I would assume that the defence offered would be that the police officer reasonably believed that he had to defend the public (as the suspect was driving a car linked to a murder and fled when confronted - and possibly attempted to harm another officer with his car). He might also say he thought the suspect was reaching for a weapon. Which might be reasonable - but it's hard to say in the absence of any further information.
That's just my take.
It refers to people who have probable cause for their arrest for felonies. He was a fleeing felon.
Quote from: AKIRA on May 27, 2016, 12:44:09 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 26, 2016, 05:08:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 26, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,
and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon".
A or B. Both are not required. They appear to apply to case number 3 only. But to justify the use of any force, one of the conditions set out in 1 - 3 would have to be met. As far as "felon" is concerned, I'd need to see how that is defined for the purposes of the statute, though I assume it means people who have been convicted of felonies (and in that case applies to 2 and/or 3 above).
I would assume that the defence offered would be that the police officer reasonably believed that he had to defend the public (as the suspect was driving a car linked to a murder and fled when confronted - and possibly attempted to harm another officer with his car). He might also say he thought the suspect was reaching for a weapon. Which might be reasonable - but it's hard to say in the absence of any further information.
That's just my take.
It refers to people who have probable cause for their arrest for felonies. He was a fleeing felon.
Did they know he was a felon or was he just fleeing? Does the act of fleeing somehow make you a felon? I thought you had to be convicted of a felony to be a felon.
Quote from: strider on May 27, 2016, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: AKIRA on May 27, 2016, 12:44:09 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 26, 2016, 05:08:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 26, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,
and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon".
A or B. Both are not required. They appear to apply to case number 3 only. But to justify the use of any force, one of the conditions set out in 1 - 3 would have to be met. As far as "felon" is concerned, I'd need to see how that is defined for the purposes of the statute, though I assume it means people who have been convicted of felonies (and in that case applies to 2 and/or 3 above).
I would assume that the defence offered would be that the police officer reasonably believed that he had to defend the public (as the suspect was driving a car linked to a murder and fled when confronted - and possibly attempted to harm another officer with his car). He might also say he thought the suspect was reaching for a weapon. Which might be reasonable - but it's hard to say in the absence of any further information.
That's just my take.
It refers to people who have probable cause for their arrest for felonies. He was a fleeing felon.
Did they know he was a felon or was he just fleeing? Does the act of fleeing somehow make you a felon? I thought you had to be convicted of a felony to be a felon.
Having gone back and read the Wikipedia article posted by SheClown, I believe Akira is right. Case three above refers to suspects fleeing after commission of a felony - though conditions A or B would also have to be satisfied in order to use deadly force (as I understand it).
For example - an armed robber flees the police after commission of a robbery in which someone was shot. No one is going to argue the police have to wait to use deadly force until after the suspect has been tried and convicted of a felony.
Edit: this doesn't mean I think he was a felon - I'm not sure whether he committed any sort of felony.
Quote from: Adam White on May 27, 2016, 09:00:52 AM
Edit: this doesn't mean I think he was a felon - I'm not sure whether he committed any sort of felony.
But the car he was driving was linked to a shooting, which is what started this entire thing to begin with, so I'm sure the presumption that he may have had something to do with the felony (if that particular case would warrant one) is probably enough for probable cause.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 27, 2016, 09:14:47 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 27, 2016, 09:00:52 AM
Edit: this doesn't mean I think he was a felon - I'm not sure whether he committed any sort of felony.
But the car he was driving was linked to a shooting, which is what started this entire thing to begin with, so I'm sure the presumption that he may have had something to do with the felony (if that particular case would warrant one) is probably enough for probable cause.
Perhaps - I don't know... I'm not a lawyer. That said, we only know the car was linked to a shooting - that could mean anything, from being used in a drive by or possibly having been seen in the area around the same time. We know precious little about this case, yet everyone seems to be falling over themselves to reach conclusions.
Edit: re-reading the original post, it appears to have been "used in a shooting". Still a bit vague for me. I think we need to know more and I hope the investigation is thorough and fair.
QuoteJACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A loaded gun was found in Springfield Thursday, but it's believed to be unrelated to Sunday's officer-involved shooting, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said.
Officers at the scene told News4Jax they were only there to "make sure the neighborhood is safe."
The gun was found just one block away from the intersection of Liberty and 9th streets, where a 22-year-old man was fatally shot by a police officer Sunday afternoon after a head-on crash with the officer's cruiser.
Vernell Bing Jr. was shot once in the side of the head after leading officers on 3.7-mile high-speed chase that ended when it appeared he intentionally struck the officer's cruiser on a Springfield street, according JSO. The Sheriff's Office said no gun was found on Bing or in his car.
Just down the street from where the gun was found, supporters of Bing's family gathered for a rally Thursday evening.
James Muhammad, president and educator of the New Black Panthers, said the black race should not have to choose between "liberation or death."
"No justice, no peace," Muhammad chanted with others at the rally.
Pastor R.L. Gundy said rallies will be necessary as the community continues to demand justice.
"We've been hollering on this for years. I'm not going to try to stop these young people from marching. I'm not going to try and stop them from protesting," Gundy said.
Thursday night rally in Springfield
Bing's grandmother attends Gundy's church and he said he sides with Bing's family. Gundy said no one should be treated like an animal, which is why he's been asking the city to make changes since 2004.
"We want a citizens review board in the community. And the City Council has the power to do it. They have the legislative power and they control the purse of the sheriff," Gundy said.
Gundy said the recent officer-involved shooting is another example of why the Sheriff's Office must install police body cameras for the protection of residents and JSO officers.
Justice League United files formal request for FBI to investigate
News4Jax also spoke with Bobby Worthy, president of the Justice League United, who filed a formal request with the FBI Thursday to have the incident investigated.
VIEW: Justice League United request for FBI to investigate shooting
The formal request argues that the "Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has a history of shooting unarmed black men with no officer ever being indicted."
The request goes on to say that the organization "respectfully requests that the U.S. Attorney's Office investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the homicide of Vernell Bing Jr., and the policies, practices and procedures of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and the State Attorney's Office."
Worthy said enough is enough.
"I'm hoping that the feds come and take over the whole investigation. What I really want is for them to take over the entire investigation because I think that Angela Corey and the Sheriff's Office have something going on. They have never, from what I know, they have never prosecuted one officer for a wrongful shooting of someone," Worthy said.
The request was initially brought to the State Attorney's Office, which then notified Worthy that he had to submit the request to the FBI. The FBI will not review the request though until the investigation is approved.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/officer-involved-shooting-in-springfield__
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 27, 2016, 09:14:47 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 27, 2016, 09:00:52 AM
Edit: this doesn't mean I think he was a felon - I'm not sure whether he committed any sort of felony.
But the car he was driving was linked to a shooting, which is what started this entire thing to begin with, so I'm sure the presumption that he may have had something to do with the felony (if that particular case would warrant one) is probably enough for probable cause.
Yes, plus there were other factors...
Quote from: strider on May 27, 2016, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: AKIRA on May 27, 2016, 12:44:09 AM
Quote from: Adam White on May 26, 2016, 05:08:06 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 26, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,
and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon".
A or B. Both are not required. They appear to apply to case number 3 only. But to justify the use of any force, one of the conditions set out in 1 - 3 would have to be met. As far as "felon" is concerned, I'd need to see how that is defined for the purposes of the statute, though I assume it means people who have been convicted of felonies (and in that case applies to 2 and/or 3 above).
I would assume that the defence offered would be that the police officer reasonably believed that he had to defend the public (as the suspect was driving a car linked to a murder and fled when confronted - and possibly attempted to harm another officer with his car). He might also say he thought the suspect was reaching for a weapon. Which might be reasonable - but it's hard to say in the absence of any further information.
That's just my take.
It refers to people who have probable cause for their arrest for felonies. He was a fleeing felon.
Did they know he was a felon or was he just fleeing? Does the act of fleeing somehow make you a felon? I thought you had to be convicted of a felony to be a felon.
"I thought you had to be convicted of a felony to be a felony."
Your confusing being label as a felon by the courts with being a fleeing felon (someone fleeing in which there is probable cause to believe has committed a felony. Ex: bank robbery fleeing from the bank. Not label yet as a 'convicted felon", but is fleeing a felony...
http://www.youtube.com/v/fhoMvi_kmsY
Press Conference will be held at Embassy Fellowship at 221 E. 8th Street today at 5:30 pm.
Sheriff Mike Williams, city council, and several pastors will be holding this conference.
Quote from: sheclown on May 27, 2016, 03:05:29 PM
Press Conference will be held at Embassy Fellowship at 221 E. 8th Street today at 5:30 pm.
Sheriff Mike Williams, city council, and several pastors will be holding this conference.
They seem to be mentioning a video, and I can't seem to find it.
Has there been video released that would incriminate the officer?
This clip discusses several controversial issues -- one of which is the release of this video yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/v/kF9jeh_-7RA
Thoughts from tonight's press conference:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5470.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5470.jpg.html)
The press conference was held in a little church on east Main Street. The church is most definitely in the epicenter of Springfield's troubles. Pastor Scott has been in this location since the mid nineties and lets us know that he understands the challenges on all sides. He also says that he's "been quiet but watchful" in a tone that quietly demands justice.
The mayor speaks next. He nods to the neighborhood concerns talking about the need for safety and the importance of raising your family in a safe environment. ( He looks folksy in his casual wear and is very charming when I thank him for coming tonight. "I wouldn't be anywhere else")
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5459.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5459.jpg.html)
The Sheriff speaks next. This is, of course, why the crowd is here. He mentions "The Video" (the one above that shows the woman in custody being hit) and states that the officer was fired. He uses this to assuage concerns that justice won't be possible. He states "we make mistakes" and "we are holding officers accountable" and "we will correct mistakes".
He tells the crowd that Vernell was shot once in the head while he was facing the officer.
He promises transparency but can't speak about an open investigation.
The Kemetric Empire (representing the family) at this point, stands up, chants "we exercise our right to protest" and then they file out of the room.
The meeting is over with the statement "Be the change you want to see".
So afterwards I went back to the corner of 9th and Liberty to talk to the family. His mother was sitting, facing the memorial.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5472.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5472.jpg.html)
I asked Kemetric Empire if they had any comments on the Sheriff's speech.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5471.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5471.jpg.html)
While Diallo Sekou had "no comment", other members stated that they are puzzled by the "transparency " comment -- like in -- its so transparent, it isn't even there.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5473.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5473.jpg.html)
James Muhammad of the New Black Panthers calls the head shot "intentional" and "an execution"
I also spoke with Dr. Levy president of the SCOC.
Quote from: strider on May 27, 2016, 03:41:17 PM
This clip discusses several controversial issues -- one of which is the release of this video yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/v/kF9jeh_-7RA
This video has been out for a few weeks now. It's not new. The officer's firing isn't new.
I was under the impression that they've released the dash-cam of the accident or maybe from another car that had footage of the actual shooting.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 23, 2016, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: CMG22 on May 23, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
I agree. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:
- JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month. Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
- In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle. Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
- Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise. Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot. Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot. It's that simple.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Bingo. I waited awhile to research the evidence; I have heard enough to know that the cop wasn't in the wrong and ultimately will be cleared of charges. This angel that people are trying to portray had continuing recent wrap sheet, and put people (the police, and a woman and baby) into danger.
This is another case of race baiting by the local media, and I know that Jax will not tolerate this unnecessary pernicious liberal-driven racial division like Baltimore, Ferguson etc. This is why it's good to have some conservatism within a city, or else it turns into a liberal hellhole. I did some really stupid stuff when I was younger, AND I knew the consequences of my actions.
Quote from: I-10east on May 28, 2016, 04:51:22 AM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on May 23, 2016, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: CMG22 on May 23, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 23, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Do stupid things, get stupid results. And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.
I agree. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:
- JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month. Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
- In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle. Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
- Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise. Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.
Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot. Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot. It's that simple.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Bingo. I waited awhile to research the evidence; I have heard enough to know that the cop wasn't in the wrong and ultimately will be cleared of charges. This angel that people are trying to portray had continuing recent wrap sheet, and put people (the police, and a woman and baby) into danger.
This is another case of race baiting by the local media, and I know that Jax will not tolerate this unnecessary pernicious liberal-driven racial division like Baltimore, Ferguson etc. This is why it's good to have some conservatism within a city, or else it turns into a liberal hellhole. I did some really stupid stuff when I was younger, AND I knew the consequences of my actions.
It seems to me that most of the information released about the suspect wasn't exactly known until after he was shot and properly identified. And while you are stating that the suspect put innocent by-standers in danger, so did JSO. Imagine how the conversations over this incident would be if a patrol car had hit and killed a by-stander or one of the four rounds that missed the suspect had hit and killed a child. Both were just as likely of an outcome as what finally did happen. Absolving JSO of any responsibility is actually just as irresponsible as the suspect fleeing to begin with.
On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped. There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.
Quote from: AKIRA on May 28, 2016, 01:27:17 PM
On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped. There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.
Is there no other way to capture criminals other than chasing them through neighborhood streets?
Quote from: AKIRA on May 28, 2016, 01:27:17 PM
On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped. There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.
Sometimes that is true. I'd find the JSO's case a bit more compelling if they knew who they were chasing (assuming he was a threat to the public).
Quote from: sheclown on May 27, 2016, 07:32:46 PM
I asked Kemetric Empire if they had any comments on the Sheriff's speech.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5471.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5471.jpg.html)
While Diallo Sekou had "no comment", other members stated that they are puzzled by the "transparency " comment -- like in -- its so transparent, it isn't even there.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN5473.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN5473.jpg.html)
James Muhammad of the New Black Panthers calls the head shot "intentional" and "an execution"
I also spoke with Dr. Levy president of the SCOC.
..your not going to report on their racist and absurd comments about jews, house negros (looong tirade), crackers, killing white people, white Jesus, gay Jesus, black supremacy, nonsensical Egyptian historical theories, etc....? You seem to make a point of bring these guys into light, then why not tell their who story? At some point, they should be ashamed of using this tragedy to promote their own particular wacky world view.
The people who actually live on the block (black and white) are ready for these guys to move on.
Quote from: sheclown on May 28, 2016, 01:30:23 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on May 28, 2016, 01:27:17 PM
On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped. There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.
Is there no other way to capture criminals other than chasing them through neighborhood streets?
...should all violent felons get a free pass to escape and continue hurting innocent people as long as they flee down a street. Maybe a PSA asking the criminals to stay off local roads and stick to the highways...
Hot pursuits are highly risky police procedure. A family member of mine was killed many years ago during a hot pursuit. She innocently was driving to the bank in the middle of the day when she was hit by a police car during a hot pursuit.
Sure, there may be times when it is absolutely necessary, but I sure would like to have an understanding of the Florida statute that dictates the circumstance and I'd like to know for certain that JSO's policies reflect the statute.
Also, I'd like to know what other options are more appropriate when dealing with a residential neighborhood.
Quote from: stephendare on May 28, 2016, 02:15:55 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on May 28, 2016, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: sheclown on May 28, 2016, 01:30:23 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on May 28, 2016, 01:27:17 PM
On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped. There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.
Is there no other way to capture criminals other than chasing them through neighborhood streets?
...should all violent felons get a free pass to escape and continue hurting innocent people as long as they flee down a street. Maybe a PSA asking the criminals to stay off local roads and stick to the highways...
Isn't that a cherry picked question AKIRA? Would it be fair to ask 'should all kill happy cops be allowed to take random shots at citizens suspected of unknown hanky panky?
Cherry picked? Far less so than quoting the Back Panthers and Kemetric Empire about their suspicion of the police/city and leaving out their own racist foolishness. This sort of topic produces all kinds of exaggerated silliness without a responsibility to accuracy.
Perhaps the question is staged a bit dramatically, but is not without reason, as the question does establish the very realistic parameters. In this day, nobody wants to be in a car chase, but society can not let the worst run free to do as they will.
The standards of how to determine the need for a chase is balanced by considering the threat posed by suspect to the public versus the threat posed by the chase itself. This is way it has been determined that JSO vehicle pursuits are for violent felonies, and not for non-violent felonies. If someone wants to know the rules, simply go the police station and ask for a print out. Easy to do.
Re-read if necessary. I can't imagine being more clear as to my opinion about the hypocrisy involved.
A better question would be is how do you keep violent felons from driving into neighborhood were they are a threat to the populace. The answer is you can not. The pursued dictate the direction of the pursuit.
The next question is should you continue chasing violent felons into a neighborhood in a car chase. The answer is yes if they have shown to be a greater threat to the neighborhood and pose a continued threat to the populace.
It would be preferable to catch a violent felon before he or she gets to a car, but it is not always possible, nor is it practical to simply let them drive away to create more havoc.
One could imagine Mr. Bing's willingness to harm the neighborhood for the sole purpose of escaping his day in court. Considering the violent felonies he was suspected of, it would appear that he was a danger whether or not he was being chased or left to his own devices.
Quote from: AKIRA on May 28, 2016, 09:00:20 PM
...Considering the violent felonies he was suspected of, it would appear that he was a danger whether or not he was being chased or left to his own devices.
And I believe this is a key point. Forget the rap-sheet that Bing actually had - it's irrelevant. As Strider pointed out earlier, the identity of the driver and his corresponding 'rap-sheet' weren't known until he was laying on the street with a bullet hole in the side of his head.
The vehicle that he was driving is what was linked to an earlier shooting of which we don't have much detail. The fact that he ran after getting blue-lighted only caused more suspicion and leading the cops on a chase only added fuel to the fire.
Based on the details (unknown at this time) of what actually happened in the earlier shooting at the auto shop, the JSO could have been extreme cause to ensure that whomever was driving that vehicle should be off of the street. These are the facts that will continue to come out of this case to allow for greater understanding.
Quote from: AKIRA on May 28, 2016, 09:00:20 PM
Re-read if necessary. I can't imagine being more clear as to my opinion about the hypocrisy involved.
A better question would be is how do you keep violent felons from driving into neighborhood were they are a threat to the populace. The answer is you can not. The pursued dictate the direction of the pursuit.
The next question is should you continue chasing violent felons into a neighborhood in a car chase. The answer is yes if they have shown to be a greater threat to the neighborhood and pose a continued threat to the populace.
It would be preferable to catch a violent felon before he or she gets to a car, but it is not always possible, nor is it practical to simply let them drive away to create more havoc.
One could imagine Mr. Bing's willingness to harm the neighborhood for the sole purpose of escaping his day in court. Considering the violent felonies he was suspected of, it would appear that he was a danger whether or not he was being chased or left to his own devices.
The bottom line is that from JSO at this point, all the pursuing officers knew for sure was they were in pursuit of a stolen car. Yes, they suspected the car may have been at the scene of a shooting but I have only heard that it was "reported" to have been, meaning they did not know for sure? Which in my mind says they did not have reason to believe he was an armed felon with a high risk of intentionally hurting others. In theory, by backing off the chase once it hit a high density urban neighborhood, the kid would have slowed himself as he also knew he was putting himself at risk and most likely tried to hide in an alley. Perhaps even ditching the car and leaving on foot. After all, his ultimate goal was not to hurt by-standers, his only real goal was not getting arrested. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure what would have happened and the fact is, once a chase starts, it must be very hard for the officers to stop. Doesn't change the fact that perhaps they should have.
A number of years ago, a car was stolen and while we were talking to the officer and finalizing the report, it was spotted and a high speed chase began. The chase, like this one, did not last long and actually officers managed to get far enough ahead of the suspect that they could and did throw tack strips out. Which sent the speeding car careening out of control, left down a side street were it took out 150 feet of chain link fence before coming to a stop. Over a stolen car that was older and well insured. I noticed the officers we heard on the radio seemed to enjoy the chase and the result. But of course, I always wondered what would have happened if someone had been standing along that fence.
We as citizens often get held to some high standard of being responsible for the possible consequences of our actions. Should not JSO be held to the same standard if not a higher one? Have we been told where the four shoots that missed the suspect ended up? Should JSO be held responsible for the danger they put innocent by-standers in? All over what was nothing more than the pursuit of someone driving a stolen car.
Question for you Strider:
The collision between Bing and the officer was head-on. Was there JSO directly behind Bing pursuing at a high rate of speed or were they already 'passively' tracking him because he was in a neighborhood. Essentially throwing a net over the area and closing in?
Did Bing only accelerate the moment he saw the JSO turn in front of him on 9th St?
I don't know, but these are what I feel as valid questions.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 29, 2016, 11:50:19 AM
Question for you Strider:
The collision between Bing and the officer was head-on. Was there JSO directly behind Bing pursuing at a high rate of speed or were they already 'passively' tracking him because he was in a neighborhood. Essentially throwing a net over the area and closing in?
Did Bing only accelerate the moment he saw the JSO turn in front of him on 9th St?
I don't know, but these are what I feel as valid questions.
What we do know is that the officer was turning at 14 MPH, Bing was traveling at 53 MPH. That means Bing's car travels 78 feet every second. If we assume officers were still in pursuit, Bings attention was out towards the rear as much as anything. The fact they knew where he was also suggests there was at least one car pursuing him at that point. It is as likely that Bing did not have time to see and avoid as it is he simply decided not to brake. Also, the pictures I have seen of the patrol car indicate a overlap collision where the cars are possibly beginning an attempt at missing each other. Common in "head on " collisions (also a test scenario used to determine crash ratings). Lots of possible scenarios as of yet and that fact does not lesson the responsibility of the JSO nor tell us the resting place of the four extra bullets. How close did they come to injuring an innocent by-stander?
Quote from: strider on May 29, 2016, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 29, 2016, 11:50:19 AM
Question for you Strider:
The collision between Bing and the officer was head-on. Was there JSO directly behind Bing pursuing at a high rate of speed or were they already 'passively' tracking him because he was in a neighborhood. Essentially throwing a net over the area and closing in?
Did Bing only accelerate the moment he saw the JSO turn in front of him on 9th St?
I don't know, but these are what I feel as valid questions.
What we do know is that the officer was turning at 14 MPH, Bing was traveling at 53 MPH. That means Bing's car travels 78 feet every second. If we assume officers were still in pursuit,
This means that we can also assume that Bing was't being actively pursued and was driving at high speeds in an attempt to outflank the cops.
Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, is it not?
QuoteLots of possible scenarios as of yet and that fact does not lesson the responsibility of the JSO
nor does it indict them.
Quotenor tell us the resting place of the four extra bullets. How close did they come to injuring an innocent by-stander?
Absolute non-sequitur. Bullets have nothing to do with high-speed chases. Had someone been hit, then we have that conversation. What if Bing had crashed into a crowd of people prior to the accident? What if the JSO officer plowed over someone crossing the street before getting to Bing? These are 'what if' scenarios that are completely irrelevant to the topic.
Actually, the conversation is indeed about where the bullets ended up as well as if the chase was a valid "hot pursuit".
Of course you can "assume" many things here to support whatever scenario you wish to be considered true. That does not change the fact that a car chase over a stolen car put many at risk by both the suspect and JSO and resulted in the death of a young unarmed man.
In this case, we, the public, the City and JSO, were all very fortunate that we are not having a conversation about one or more innocent by-standers seriously hurt or dead.
This conversation will ultimately be about who is responsible and what happens the next time a stolen car is spotted and chased.
Quote from: strider on May 29, 2016, 01:52:58 PM
Of course you can "assume" many things here to support whatever scenario you wish to be considered true.
If you've read through my posts on the matter, I haven't exactly 'assumed' anything other than my original 'what if' scenario that required a great deal of assumption.
There are definitely two sides to this issue (and the many that are like it) and while I don't have a 'side', I find it ironic that posters from both sides, while acknowledging the few 'facts' we have, find it OK to just fill in the blanks with assumptions.
Was he being actively pursued at a high rate of speed or not?
Did he make any kind of motion/gesture/attempt that would make the JSO believe he might have had a weopon?
Did he initially run because he knew he was guilty of something or because he just panicked?
The first will have a clear answer.
Tje second will more than likely be left up to he said/she said.
The 3rd, possibly the most important question of all, will not be answered.
But until you start finding the answers to these questions, you can't even truly ask the others regarding responsibility to the public and individual judgment calls of the officers involved.
Back when I was in HS (I think this happened in 1989 or 1990 - it was during my senior year), my best friend was doing a ride along with the JSO because he was a Police Explorer scout or something. Anyway, he was involved in a high speed chase. Apparently a car was doing doughnuts in parking lot in Fernandina. The driver fled when the cops arrived - apparently he was recently out of jail or prison and didn't want to go back. This led to a high speed chase into Duval County. The JSO fired shots at the car as it sped down the highway. It was at night. Eventually the car crashed near downtown (I think) and the driver was shot and killed by the JSO when the rushed the car. My friend had to testify in court as to what he saw and heard.
The driver was unarmed and hadn't really done much wrong, other than flee. Well, that and the doughnuts. I don't know what happened to the cop or cops who killed the guy - but a guy ending up dead after a very dangerous high speed chase (complete with gunfire) wasn't the right outcome, regardless.
I'm sure the JSO has changed a lot since those days - but I still think a lot of cops have a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to dealing with suspects.
Quote from: strider on May 29, 2016, 01:52:58 PM
Actually, the conversation is indeed about where the bullets ended up as well as if the chase was a valid "hot pursuit".
Of course you can "assume" many things here to support whatever scenario you wish to be considered true. That does not change the fact that a car chase over a stolen car put many at risk by both the suspect and JSO and resulted in the death of a young unarmed man.
In this case, we, the public, the City and JSO, were all very fortunate that we are not having a conversation about one or more innocent by-standers seriously hurt or dead.
This conversation will ultimately be about who is responsible and what happens the next time a stolen car is spotted and chased.
Again, it was not about a solen car. It was about a armed robbery suspect. It's not the cart that's the issue; it's the act of armed robbery.
Would you prefer that the police crease trying to stop the bad guys in the urban core? Just leave those neighborhoods out to dry? Does it not seem dangerous to chase such people into a neighborhood, and then decided to just leave them there to prey the populace.
It should be noted that Mr. Bing and the officer were alone during the shooting. That means the police chasing him had dropped back, does it not? Is it not possible that the officer was trying to cut off Mr. Bing before recklessly driving through a neighborhood to escape his pending charge?
I am somewhat amazed at the leaps of hope to faith Mr. Bing of his responsibility and the leaps of reasons to find fault with the police.
But frankly, since someone here keeps quoting anti-Semitic, racist speakers when talking about justice, but fail to see the reality of those speakers and what they are really about, it does not shock me...
Quote from: AKIRA on May 30, 2016, 10:15:27 PM
Quote from: strider on May 29, 2016, 01:52:58 PM
Actually, the conversation is indeed about where the bullets ended up as well as if the chase was a valid "hot pursuit".
Of course you can "assume" many things here to support whatever scenario you wish to be considered true. That does not change the fact that a car chase over a stolen car put many at risk by both the suspect and JSO and resulted in the death of a young unarmed man.
In this case, we, the public, the City and JSO, were all very fortunate that we are not having a conversation about one or more innocent by-standers seriously hurt or dead.
This conversation will ultimately be about who is responsible and what happens the next time a stolen car is spotted and chased.
Again, it was not about a solen car. It was about a armed robbery suspect. It's not the cart that's the issue; it's the act of armed robbery.
Would you prefer that the police crease trying to stop the bad guys in the urban core? Just leave those neighborhoods out to dry? Does it not seem dangerous to chase such people into a neighborhood, and then decided to just leave them there to prey the populace.
It should be noted that Mr. Bing and the officer were alone during the shooting. That means the police chasing him had dropped back, does it not? Is it not possible that the officer was trying to cut off Mr. Bing before recklessly driving through a neighborhood to escape his pending charge?
I am somewhat amazed at the leaps of hope to faith Mr. Bing of his responsibility and the leaps of reasons to find fault with the police.
But frankly, since someone here keeps quoting anti-Semitic, racist speakers when talking about justice, but fail to see the reality of those speakers and what they are really about, it does not shock me...
Please quote where we have been told that the pursing officers knew for sure anything but they were pursuing a suspect in a stolen car. The armed robbery you speak to was a month before this pursuit. How did the officers know the driver was doing anything illegal except driving a stolen car and resisting arrest?
If Bing and the officer had been truly alone, we would not have the various eye-witness accounts nor the facts released by the JSO. How close were the pursuing officers? We do not know yet. But probably not far behind. I suspect, but granted, do not know, that while the suspect probably blasted through the intersections, the pursuing officers where a bit more careful so a bit slower.
Not sure how questioning the validity of a hot pursuit and the firing of five rounds at a probably disoriented suspect by an JSO officer is anything but the application of common sense. While we can't lessen Bing's responsibility in this, how can we not see JSO's responsibility as well? I highly suspect JSO's leadership knows how lucky it was that this incident did not involve innocent by-standers more than it did. And are asking the same questions about the pursuit and the shooting.
As to the reporting of what the New Black Panthers and others may say about this incident. Well, it has been reported. Nothing more. I see nothing that indicates this site is promoting those groups and I see a pretty equal reporting what JSO has said as well.
The only positive to come out of this incident is a possible conversation to improve things in the future. We can't change the loss of a young man nor can we change what the officer himself may be feeling or facing.
nice article in Folio by Springfield Resident Jim Moody. "UNITED in SPRINGFIELD"
http://folioweekly.com/UNITED-in-SPRINGFIELD,15417
What if...we all just agree to disagree because your endless bantering and squabbling over semantics means nothing? Who cares? How about that?
Ugh..."the police should have stopped", "the guy wasn't trying to hurt anyone", "they were in a residential neighborhood"....get over it. The jackass ran from the cops...obviously he was wanted for something or he would have pulled over. He ran, got chased and got shot.
Lesson learned: Don't be a jackass, don't do stupid crap and don't run from the cops. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Guess what? It will probably happen again tonight because people are idiots.
Quote from: menace1069 on June 03, 2016, 02:25:29 PM
What if...we all just agree to disagree because your endless bantering and squabbling over semantics means nothing? Who cares? How about that?
Ugh..."the police should have stopped", "the guy wasn't trying to hurt anyone", "they were in a residential neighborhood"....get over it. The jackass ran from the cops...obviously he was wanted for something or he would have pulled over. He ran, got chased and got shot.
Lesson learned: Don't be a jackass, don't do stupid crap and don't run from the cops. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Guess what? It will probably happen again tonight because people are idiots.
meh.. and when people decide that you are a jackass for online comments, are any consequences off limits?
Quote from: menace1069 on June 03, 2016, 02:25:29 PM
What if...we all just agree to disagree because your endless bantering and squabbling over semantics means nothing? Who cares? How about that?
Ugh..."the police should have stopped", "the guy wasn't trying to hurt anyone", "they were in a residential neighborhood"....get over it. The jackass ran from the cops...obviously he was wanted for something or he would have pulled over. He ran, got chased and got shot.
Lesson learned: Don't be a jackass, don't do stupid crap and don't run from the cops. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Guess what? It will probably happen again tonight because people are idiots.
Semantics?
Quote from: TheCat on June 03, 2016, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: menace1069 on June 03, 2016, 02:25:29 PM
What if...we all just agree to disagree because your endless bantering and squabbling over semantics means nothing? Who cares? How about that?
Ugh..."the police should have stopped", "the guy wasn't trying to hurt anyone", "they were in a residential neighborhood"....get over it. The jackass ran from the cops...obviously he was wanted for something or he would have pulled over. He ran, got chased and got shot.
Lesson learned: Don't be a jackass, don't do stupid crap and don't run from the cops. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Guess what? It will probably happen again tonight because people are idiots.
meh.. and when people decide that you are a jackass for online comments, are any consequences off limits?
LOL. There's very little chance that I'll get shot by the cops for my online comments, no matter how ridiculous they may be.
QuoteAlan Grayson talks Vernell Bing Jr.: 'A death like that has to mean something'
June 5, 2016 By A.G. Gancarski
In Jacksonville Saturday to speak to the Florida Young Democrats, Rep. Alan Grayson made another stop beforehand: a vigil for Vernell Bing Jr., who was shot down by a police officer last month.
"They told me that I'm the only elected official who's shown up the last two weeks," Grayson said.
"It tears them up," the Orlando congressman added. "A death like that has to mean something."
For Grayson, who believes Bing was "cheated out of fifty years of life," the meaning is part of an illustration of a larger trend.
At the rally, linked above, Grayson struggled with parlance – referring to Bing as "that boy," a phrase corrected by someone on hand to "that man."
Yet his remarks about needing not just "equality of opportunity, but equality of results" were received respectfully.
Grayson, by and large, is an unknown commodity in Jacksonville. But he expects that to change. He has paid staff here, including local Democratic activist Ben Weaver, and 5 percent of all Democrats in Florida are in Duval County ... which could be pivotal in the Senate primary Aug. 30.
Grayson, whose message of unrepentant "Feel the Bern" style liberalism is not necessarily the brand you see elsewhere in the Duval Democratic Party, is a different kind of Dem than people are used to in the 904.
And the Bing rally illustrates why.
"I hugged the mother, prayed with her," Grayson said, before talking about the root causes of what happened to Bing and countless other young African-American men.
"There's a pervasive problem called racism," Grayson says, with impacts reflected in everything from medial salary numbers to educational outcomes.
Pointing out that the average African-American per capita income of $37,000 is well-below the average of $57,000 for whites, Grayson said there was a "$20,000 poll tax" on blacks "based on the color of your skin."
Grayson referred, in our 25 minute phone conversation Saturday evening, to a young man named Andrew Joseph in Tampa, who died in 2014 crossing Interstate 4 on foot after being ejected from a fair by police officers.
In the wake of that incident, Grayson sat down with parents, made calls for civilian review boards, and petitioned the FBI and Justice Department to investigate patterns of racial profiling.
Since people in the Bing case have already petitioned for federal redress, Grayson is "willing to look over the request they've made" and see if his input or signature will help.
Grayson sees parallels between the Jacksonville area where Bing was killed and metro areas in other parts of the state, saying that the neighborhood in Jacksonville "could fairly be called a ghetto" given the evident disparities.
In Tampa, there are "enormous amounts of segregation" as well, with "blacks denied political power," disenfranchised through laws, such as those that strip suffrage from convicted felons.
Over 2 million Floridians can't vote, said Grayson. Over half are black.
"We literally lead the nation in black disenfranchisement."
Grayson sees himself as the polar opposite of his opponent, Patrick Murphy, whom he sees as a "right-wing Republican" who was just one of seven Democrats to support the congressional Benghazi investigation.
Clinton has overlooked Murphy's deviation from party line; Grayson, however, is not there.
Grayson wants voters in Jacksonville "to understand – I work hard, I pay attention, and I get things done."
He has less than three months to make that pitch.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/212260-alan-grayson-talks-vernell-bing-death-like-mean-something
http://www.youtube.com/v/fAsPbVJG994
Published on May 31, 2016
"Kemetic Empire teams up with MK ULTRA in order to Bring to light that which is in the dark"
Melissa Ross is currently talking about Vernell Bing on First Coast Connect.
Quote
Jacksonville Bold for 6.7.16 – The meaning of Vernell Bing's life and death
June 7, 2016 By Peter Schorsch
Is Vernell Bing, Jr. an outlier? Or a harbinger of a summer of violence and misunderstanding to come?
It depends on who you ask.
Bing was, by every account, shot in the head last month after a 3.7-mile chase, which ended with Bing's stolen car colliding head-on with a police cruiser at 9th and Liberty streets.
Councilman Reggie Gaffney called for an independent investigation into the incident.
Pastor R.L. Gundy puts this episode in a larger tradition, one involving African-American "children being shot down like wild animals in the streets while our women are being beaten and abused by JSO Officers."
In all caps, Gundy makes his point: "WE NEED CAMERAS IN CARS AND ON OFFICERS TO PROTECT THE JSO AND US!"
Gundy also says that this pattern of police violence precludes the passage of the pension-tax referendum.
U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, meanwhile, said that "a death like that has to mean something."
Protesters have been standing vigil at the corner of 9th and Liberty for two weeks since Bing's killing, and they have no plans to leave anytime soon (though there may have been a weather-driven pause Monday evening).
And someone claiming to be with Anonymous also has taken notice.
"Our police have become judge, jury and executioners. We will not stand for this ... We are calling for the doxxing of all JSO officers involved, along with State Attorney Angela Corey for her lack of action in this and mishandling in many other cases ... as well as boots on the ground to join us in solidarity with this community and to contest the police fear they have been placing on this assembly on Saturday, June 11, 2016, in a Rally 4 Li'l Redd."
For the uninitiated, "doxxing," involves the release of private information into a public forum.
Opinions on the death of Bing run the gamut, and tend to fit the interpretative bias of the speaker.
There is a huge camp that says that the police shooting of Bing was justifiable. Indeed, it could be said that the head-on collision was an attempt to use lethal force against theofficer. And for someone born in 1992, Bing's rap sheet is substantial.
And then there is the camp that says that Bing's killing is yet another in an endless series of lethal police violence against citizens.
Can the concerns of these camps be reconciled?
That's ultimately the question upon which the legacies of all incumbents – Mayor Lenny Curry, Sheriff Mike Williams, and Angela Corey – will be predicated.
If a dialogue can be created, it will have to bridge a gulf – over decades of aggressive policing, over generations of resource and outcome inequities, and over social dynamics whose roots go back centuries.
The dialogue is going to have to be created.
Otherwise, another Vernell Bing, Jr. incident is inevitable.
And those questions that weren't answered this time will be posed again, this time with a feeling there is even less to lose than before.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/212247-jacksonville-bold-6-7-16-meaning-vernell-bings-life-death
The JSO does a lot by intimidating, but so do most cops in America. For we the people out number them.
Quote from: jlmann on June 08, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
But one thing is certain I have just about had it with police- every death should have an independent investigation and every cop should wear a body cam they cant turn off. How is this even up for debate?
The argument I often hear is the cost, not of the cameras/vests themselves, but for the data storage. I find it mind blowing that a philanthropic tech org (Bill and Melinda Gates Found, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, etc) hasn't stepped up and offered to find a way to house all this data for free (since our own governments don't find it to be a priority). If it's physically and technologically capable of happening, it should be as important as having armed police. Their days of being free from culpability are soon coming to an end, but it'll time so everyone have your cameras ready.
Quote from: SuzySpringfield on June 09, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: jlmann on June 08, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
But one thing is certain I have just about had it with police- every death should have an independent investigation and every cop should wear a body cam they cant turn off. How is this even up for debate?
The argument I often hear is the cost, not of the cameras/vests themselves, but for the data storage. I find it mind blowing that a philanthropic tech org (Bill and Melinda Gates Found, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, etc) hasn't stepped up and offered to find a way to house all this data for free (since our own governments don't find it to be a priority). If it's physically and technologically capable of happening, it should be as important as having armed police. Their days of being free from culpability are soon coming to an end, but it'll time so everyone have your cameras ready.
Because local governments are penny-wise but pound-foolish. They sneer at the costs of utilizing and maintaining body cameras and the associated data, but then the citizens are the ones stuck with the bill in the inevitable wrongful death lawsuits that follow.
Quote from: Josh on June 09, 2016, 12:08:52 PM
Quote from: SuzySpringfield on June 09, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: jlmann on June 08, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
But one thing is certain I have just about had it with police- every death should have an independent investigation and every cop should wear a body cam they cant turn off. How is this even up for debate?
The argument I often hear is the cost, not of the cameras/vests themselves, but for the data storage. I find it mind blowing that a philanthropic tech org (Bill and Melinda Gates Found, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, etc) hasn't stepped up and offered to find a way to house all this data for free (since our own governments don't find it to be a priority). If it's physically and technologically capable of happening, it should be as important as having armed police. Their days of being free from culpability are soon coming to an end, but it'll time so everyone have your cameras ready.
Because local governments are penny-wise but pound-foolish. They sneer at the costs of utilizing and maintaining body cameras and the associated data, but then the citizens are the ones stuck with the bill in the inevitable wrongful death lawsuits that follow.
So do we the people just say screw the body camera's because some people in Jacksonville Florida would be afraid of a wrongful death lawsuit? Come on that's nuts. Curry got his comm service officers and is getting more cops. The JSO & Firefighters if they make it to retirement all get Golden Parachutes. Hey lets raise the sales tax to a penny and pay for the new body camera's and assoc data. I'm going to still vote NO on the 1/2 cent sales tax so adding another 1/2 cent doesn't change anything for me.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on June 09, 2016, 12:50:32 PM
Quote from: Josh on June 09, 2016, 12:08:52 PM
Quote from: SuzySpringfield on June 09, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: jlmann on June 08, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
But one thing is certain I have just about had it with police- every death should have an independent investigation and every cop should wear a body cam they cant turn off. How is this even up for debate?
The argument I often hear is the cost, not of the cameras/vests themselves, but for the data storage. I find it mind blowing that a philanthropic tech org (Bill and Melinda Gates Found, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, etc) hasn't stepped up and offered to find a way to house all this data for free (since our own governments don't find it to be a priority). If it's physically and technologically capable of happening, it should be as important as having armed police. Their days of being free from culpability are soon coming to an end, but it'll time so everyone have your cameras ready.
Because local governments are penny-wise but pound-foolish. They sneer at the costs of utilizing and maintaining body cameras and the associated data, but then the citizens are the ones stuck with the bill in the inevitable wrongful death lawsuits that follow.
So do we the people just say screw the body camera's because some people in Jacksonville Florida would be afraid of a wrongful death lawsuit? Come on that's nuts. Curry got his comm service officers and is getting more cops. The JSO & Firefighters if they make it to retirement all get Golden Parachutes. Hey lets raise the sales tax to a penny and pay for the new body camera's and assoc data. I'm going to still vote NO on the 1/2 cent sales tax so adding another 1/2 cent doesn't change anything for me.
Um, the argument I am making is that we will have LESS lawsuits against JSO if they are wearing body cameras. Therefore we will SAVE money.
Quote from: jlmann on June 09, 2016, 12:39:41 PM
and it just occurred to me why the data argument is really bunk:
you can determine quite quickly if any violence or shooting incident occurred involving a police officer. then, an INDEPENDENT body wipes the unnecessary footage once a month or whatever.
this is so solvable its absurd police are allowed to obstruct with such nonsense
While not a horrible idea, I'm sure there' s some sort of statue of limitations on how ong the munincipalities have to store public records.
Quote from: SuzySpringfield on June 09, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
Quote from: jlmann on June 08, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
But one thing is certain I have just about had it with police- every death should have an independent investigation and every cop should wear a body cam they cant turn off. How is this even up for debate?
The argument I often hear is the cost, not of the cameras/vests themselves, but for the data storage. I find it mind blowing that a philanthropic tech org (Bill and Melinda Gates Found, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, etc) hasn't stepped up and offered to find a way to house all this data for free (since our own governments don't find it to be a priority).
Something along the lines of this:
https://news.microsoft.com/2016/01/19/microsoft-philanthropies-announces-commitment-to-donate-1-billion-in-cloud-computing-resources-to-serve-the-public-good/#sm.00001e3lfto97tcs0yb3kswfmedwz
If you wish to research the question of camera costs, do a public records request for cost of data for UNF's police camera footage and, presumably, multiply it to JSO level.
FBI to investigate -
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2016-06-10/story/jacksonville-sheriff-fbi-hold-joint-news-conference-may-police-shooting
Video of the press confernce -
https://www.facebook.com/JacksonvilleSheriffsOffice/videos/10153683771907896/
Interesting that this is not stating that there will be an independent investigation but rather it will be a review of the JSO investigation to be done after JSO completes the investigation. In fact, the Sheriff indicated a review like this is quite common, just not often announced. I suspect this is not what some of the various groups had asked for nor feels will be what guarantees a fair and just outcome. But who knows. We in the public have very little actually information at this point and I doubt we will be getting any real new info for some time yet.
Quote from: strider on June 10, 2016, 05:11:17 PM
Interesting that this is not stating that there will be an independent investigation but rather it will be a review of the JSO investigation to be done after JSO completes the investigation. In fact, the Sheriff indicated a review like this is quite common, just not often announced. I suspect this is not what some of the various groups had asked for nor feels will be what guarantees a fair and just outcome. But who knows. We in the public have very little actually information at this point and I doubt we will be getting any real new info for some time yet.
Yes, there is very little information and there is no reason to doubt that the FBI investigation (or review, if you will) will be sufficient. I think a lot of people are starting out with a lot of preconceived notions and it's getting a bit tiresome.
So the FBI was called in yesterday
This is interesting. Logically, the FBI wouldn't be called in unless the sheriff decided the shooting was justified and needed additional juice.
But time will tell.
Still think a Citizen's Review Board is a good response to this situation.
Some info on Atlanta's:
Atlanta Citizen Review Board Overview
The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (ACRB) was established by Ordinance (City Sec 2 2201 Establishment of the Atlanta Citizen Review Board) as an independent agency in 2007 and amended with subpoena power in May of 2010 (ACRB-Ordinance-Amendment 10-0-0773). The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that city departments directly responsible for public safety, particularly the Police Department and the Department of Corrections have the proper support of the government and its various agencies. It is designed to provide citizen oversight of misconduct accusations against sworn members of the police and corrections departments in the City of Atlanta.
The ACRB provides a credible, independent forum where complaints and accusations can be assessed. It is also designed to help prevent future incidents of police or corrections misconduct and abuses of civil rights and to reduce the amount of money needed to satisfy judgments and settlements based on upon allegations of police or corrections misconduct. The ACRB promotes public confidence in law enforcement and lessens the possibility that future incidents of urban unrest will occur.
http://acrbgov.org
Lets raise the sales tax just for the body camera's and data storage that the JSO really doesn't want they just don't have the Balls to say it.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/8c2e0710-1bf3-483c-9400-d1c697abffc6.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/8c2e0710-1bf3-483c-9400-d1c697abffc6.jpg.html)
facebook.
"The Town Hall Meeting #Justice4lilRedd #Jacksonville #TheKemeticEmpire
Certain Clergymen , City officials have been put on notice from this meeting. The people have spoke!"
http://www.news4jax.com/video/bing-town-hall-meeting
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/8c348178-bcd0-4520-9a9e-27de29fda270.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/8c348178-bcd0-4520-9a9e-27de29fda270.jpg.html)
Interesting that I, as a resident of Historic Springfield, did not see ANYTHING about either of the above rallies....until I just now saw them on this thread.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on June 14, 2016, 12:12:25 PM
Interesting that I, as a resident of Historic Springfield, did not see ANYTHING about either of the above rallies....until I just now saw them on this thread.
Is it really that interesting? If you have a moment of free time, check out the organizers website.
QuoteWe've seen a lot of shares of our earlier post. Unfortunately, sharing this on FB only shares the link and not President Zona's comments. Please feel free to share this one instead. Thank you all for your support as we work hard to bring the Jacksonville community together and protect our members while the protect our citizens.
On May 22, 2016, Vernell Bing attacked an officer with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office using the deadly force of a stolen vehicle traveling at a speed of 53MPH against the officer's marked patrol vehicle traveling at 14MPH for a combined force of 67MPH. The suspect conducted this assault after leading officers on a 3.7 mile pursuit endangering the lives of the community at large. Any officer participating in such a pursuit does so at great personal risk relying on training, experience, and instinct to ensure their own survival and the safety of the community and all persons involved.
There is zero evidence, or historical empirical data, available to indicate that had Mr. Bing allowed himself to be taken into custody initiating his constitutional right to due process, that any harm would have come to himself or anyone else. Officers in Jacksonville, and around the country, make far greater than 99% of all arrests of suspects without using deadly force, much less excessive force. The percentage is even higher among compliant suspects than those who resist. Mr. Bing chose a course of action which led Officer Tyler Landreville to respond to Mr. Bing's actions with deadly force resulting in his death.
There has been no indication by anyone, other than those who are uninformed or refuse to acknowledge facts, that Ofc. Landreville made any judgement or policy errors. This is a voice that will not be placated by any mountain of evidence or review by any governing body. I have complete confidence in the extraordinary work done by the JSO and State Attorney's Office investigators that do flawless work in these types of cases. Furthermore, I am confident in their ability to follow the procedures outlined by negotiated contracts and state laws that result in open and thorough investigations. I am also confident that any review by anyone, including the FBI, will result in the conclusion that Ofc. Landreville acted appropriately, by state law, and by agency policy.
Lastly, we extend sincere empathy for the sadness that Mr. Bing's actions have caused his family. We are equally sympathetic for the trauma experienced by our officer and the potential lifelong impact it will have on him and his family. We will continue to be here to support both the officer and his family during this difficult time. However, we are thankful that there are men and women willing to put it on the line for love of their community in the face of declining wages and benefits.
Steve Zona, President
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 5-30
QuoteIn response to the statement the FOP released on their Facebook page concerning the execution of Vernell Bing Jr. To make a statement that Vernell Bing Jr "attacked, used deadly force and assaulted " Oficer Landreville is unprofessional, reckless, negligent & unfounded. To make such claims as if JSO has concluded their internal investigations that the FBI is reviewing and told the FOP this is what took place. The FOP is putting out propaganda to protect another one of its killers.
You say there is "zero evidence, or historical empirical data that Mr. Bing may not have been harmed by JSO if captured, well you don't know JSO history of excessive force i.e. (Mary Martinez and questionable murders of other unarmed black men).
The Chief said, "something cause him to draw his gun." Maybe nothing caused him to draw his gun because he simply wanted to kill Vernell Bing Jr.
What the FOP should be stating to the public is JSO Standard Operating Procedure when it comes to "Blocking a lane during a car chase" & "ramming a car". What was the order during the car chase? Because Landrevill's patrol car is pictured in the oncoming lane, which would put that "professional, expertise training you wrote about to work to do a side swipe crash of Vernell Bing Jr. car headed his way. His car was in the ongoing lane. Where Vernell Bing Jr. attempted to avoid Landreville.
There is plenty of indication Officer Ladreville used terrible judgment based off his known temper, to be the judge, jury and executioner of 22 years old, unarmed Vernell Bing Jr.
The bottom line is what you wrote on your Facebook page was reckless and shows the arrogance of agency that gets away with murder based on what you called "procedures outlined by negotiated contracts and state laws and relationship with The State Attorney's Office". The FOP is supposed to be for good cops not bad ones. The FOP should be silent until the investigation is complete.
Lastly, We don't trust you and never will.
Diallo-Sekou, The Chairman
The Kemetic Empire
Interesting take on body camera issue:
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=548536