QuoteSheriff to fire Jacksonville officer who shot unarmed burglary suspect
By Matt GalnorStory updated at 7:11 AM on Saturday, Jul. 11, 2009
Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford started the process this week to fire an officer who shot an unarmed burglary suspect in the back.
Officer Ryan T. Fraser was notified of the decision this week and plans on fighting the decision, a union attorney said.
Rutherford deemed the October shooting “questionable†months ago. Unlike most other officers involved in shootings, Fraser has been on desk duty and not been sent back on the street since last fall's shooting.
Fraser shot Jerrick Hall, now 20, after Hall jumped out of a window and ran from an apparent burglary on the Westside. Hall was shot in the shoulder and hospitalized, but did not have life-threatening injuries.
Fraser said he was in fear for the life of fellow officer Daneen Rohde, whom Hall was running toward with his hands in his waistband.
Rutherford said Fraser's mistake was "unnacceptable."
"The error right there has to be zero," Rutherford said.
For more on this story, see jacksonville.com and Saturday's Times-Union.
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-07-10/story/sheriff_to_fire_jacksonville_officer_who_shot_unarmed_burglary_suspect
QuoteSheriff Rutherford fires Officer Fraser over 2008 shooting
By Matt GalnorStory updated at 10:05 AM on Saturday, Jul. 11, 2009
Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford is firing a Jacksonville police officer who shot an unarmed burglary suspect from behind last fall.
Rutherford said Officer Ryan T. Fraser's decision was "unacceptable" and even though Fraser said he feared for the life of a fellow officer, he did not follow department policy.
"The error right there has to be zero," Rutherford said Friday afternoon.
Fraser is the third officer involved in a shooting Rutherford has moved to fire since he took office in 2003. The others, in 2003 and 2005, resigned instead.
Fraser plans to fight the decision, Fraternal Order of Police attorney Paul Daragjati said.
"In the violent world the police officers operate in, there will be error on rare occasion," Daragjati said. "To adopt a 'zero room for error' policy is not a realistic expectation."
Rutherford said he understands mistakes, but there can be no errors in judgment when using deadly force.
Rutherford deemed the October shooting "questionable" months ago. Unlike most other officers involved in shootings, Fraser has been on desk duty and has not been sent back on the street since the shooting.
Fraser and Officer Daneen Rohde were among three officers who responded to a burglary call on the Westside last fall. Fraser ran toward the back of the house and Rohde stayed in front.
Fraser shot Jerrick Hall, now 20, after Hall jumped out of a window and ran along the side of the Owen Avenue home. When Hall hit the ground from his jump, he rolled and kept his hands in his waistband.
Fraser yelled at Hall to stop, but he kept running. Fraser said he thought Hall had a gun and feared the suspect was a danger to Rohde, so he fired twice.
Hall was shot in the shoulder and hospitalized but did not have life-threatening injuries.
By the time Rohde saw Hall, he had already been shot. Rohde could see Hall did not have a gun, so she holstered her weapon and tackled Hall.
Police photos showed a ransacked house where Hall and other teens had been inside stripping copper wire, though Hall said they were just playing around in the house.
Prosecutors dropped the charges against Hall in January during the first weeks of State Attorney Angela Corey's term. Corey said in February she didn't know about the decision until contacted by the Times-Union. She ordered a second look into the case.
Hall's family has filed notice of intent to sue the city. His attorneys include former State Attorney Harry Shorstein, who was in office at the time of the incident and when charges were filed against Hall.
City attorneys have argued that Shorstein has a conflict of interest and, if suit is filed, will argue that it be thrown out.
Fraser appeared before the Sheriff's Office Response to Resistance review board in April and the panel of five high-ranking officers sent the case to internal affairs for a closer look.
Rutherford said Hall did not pose a threat to Fraser or Rohde leaving the sheriff with no option but to fire Fraser.
The shooting was one of 28 in 2008. There have been eight so far this year.
The decision on Fraser comes the month after Rutherford recommended a 20-day suspension for an officer who shot at a car driving away from him in front of an East Arlington school.
matt.galnor@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4550
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-07-11/story/sheriff_rutherford_fires_officer_fraser_over_2008_shooting
It's ridiculous that the cop was fired.
I'd rather him shoot the guy just in case, then not, be wrong, and take a couple shots himself.
There is no way this cop should have been fired. The suspect, Hall, was fleeing from an apparent crime scene. It's not like he was simply walking down street. If the suspect wasn't involved in illegal activities then why did he run from the cops?
Also why did they drop the charges against Hall? The article says that police photos showed a ransacked house and evidence of copper being stripped out.
And now the family is suing the city. The whole thing is ridiculous. It seems to me that if you don't want to get shot then don't be burglarizing houses and don't run from the cops.
Quote from: stephendare on July 11, 2009, 06:25:38 PM
well, I dont remember that vandalism or burglary carried a death penalty.
And I agree it shouldn't. Teenagers do stupid things, but cops carry guns. So until JSO becomes more active in utilizing non-lethal methods of disabling criminals (I.E. Tasers, Rubber bullets) you're going to take the chance of being shot if your involved in crimes such as burglary.
Quote from: A-Finnius on July 11, 2009, 05:40:37 PM
There is no way this cop should have been fired. The suspect, Hall, was fleeing from an apparent crime scene. It's not like he was simply walking down street. If the suspect wasn't involved in illegal activities then why did he run from the cops?
Also why did they drop the charges against Hall? The article says that police photos showed a ransacked house and evidence of copper being stripped out.
And now the family is suing the city. The whole thing is ridiculous. It seems to me that if you don't want to get shot then don't be burglarizing houses and don't run from the cops.
Would that have been the MIDDLE of the street? That's pretty dangerous too.
If it turned out that Hall was carrying a gun; would it had then been okay for the cop to fire his weapon?
No I just believe that if Hall had been carrying a weapon, then this incident wouldn't have become an issue and the officer wouldn't have been fired.
If a regular person had shot hall and not a police officer; like the resident of the burglarized home? I don't have an issue with a person firing a weapon on an intruder. I think people should have the right to protect themselves and their property.
I'm not a gun advocate either. I like the idea of cops using non-lethal methods when persuing suspects. Then we can eliminate a lot of these issues.
We also need to take in consideration the standpoint of the officer. They are in stressful situations everyday. I'm sure after a while that has to take a toll on a person. So I'm not sure we should penalize the cop for acting on his instincts in what he obviously thought was situation where his partner's life was endanger.
Nah no tears here, don"t have a problem with the officer being fired, seems the cop was pretty amateur. But home owner, nope no problems with him taking matters in his own hands. Rule of thumb, don't want to get shot don"t rob and steal.
Looking trashy and dressing "thuggish" may potentially have consequences I had not imagined until now. It is somewhat collateral, but I am going to take a leap of faith and guess that Hall was keeping with the idiotic fashion trend of wearing his shorts/pants down well below his hips. Thus, when trying to run, he has to keep his hands down at his waist to keep his pants from falling down. The waistline also happens to be where the majority of people house their handgun. I really mean to make no analysis on the justification of the officer firing at him, and I may be wrong, but it strikes me that my hypothesis is probably correct. Before the outrage begins, I obviously do not believe the penalty for dressing like an idiot is being shot..
Quote from: A-Finnius on July 11, 2009, 07:47:36 PM
If it turned out that Hall was carrying a gun; would it had then been okay for the cop to fire his weapon?
Nope...the use of deadly force is not just a last resort...but most police officers are taught to use it only when their life is in danger.
So, the only way shooting him would be acceptable was if the guy had drawn (or was preparing to draw) his gun on the cop...considering he was running away, this does not apply.
The article clearly says that the officer did not follow policy in the use of deadly force. A reprimand would be fine for improperly filling out paperwork or something else. You cannot make errors in judgement in the use of deadly force. The public entrusts these officers with that responsibility and if policy is not followed and someone is killed or injured termination is justifiable.
Bottom line... He did not follow policy... according to Rutherford...
the Cop said he feared for the other officer's well-being. good enough reason for me.
a robbery puts the victims's life in danger as well as the criminal - it's not a one way street.
Apparently... according to policy... fear is not a acceptable reason to shoot someone. I happen to agree this time.
Quote from: fsu813 on July 12, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
the Cop said he feared for the other officer's well-being. good enough reason for me.
that's called covering for a buddy.
One of the biggest problems police departments have is that many do ONLY internal investigations after shootings...it's not exactly a unbiased review.
Why do you assume these reviews are biased? Apparently it was not biased in this case as the officer was dismissed. Tufsu... do they let unbiased outside entities review disciplinary actions where you work? Every place I have ever worked these reviews are carried out by the agency or company review procedures.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 12, 2009, 09:51:46 AM
Why do you assume these reviews are biased? Apparently it was not biased in this case as the officer was dismissed. Tufsu... do they let unbiased outside entities review disciplinary actions where you work? Every place I have ever worked these reviews are carried out by the agency or company review procedures.
ok...I take it back...what I meant was it makes the review often "appear" to be biased
I will make a huge assumption here... I assume after the review process is completed that process can be reviewed by the public. I also assume the FOP will review the process also.
OK... two assumptions... :)
I think I've heard of some sort of civilian review board in Duval County regarding the Sheriff's office but I'm not sure. If there is one, does anyone know how to get on it? Not me, I don't live in Duval County.
There is no civilian review board in Duval County. Federal law enforcement agencies can not enforce state and local laws.
StephanDare!: "In a relatively short time, what was basically created to functon in the same manner as a private security guard has morphed into a lethal force that actively criticizes and condemns the very courts and process they are supposed to be serving."
Law Enforcement Officers have existed in America since the 1600's. The enforcement of the laws of the state, and municiple ordinances in incorporated towns and cities is the duty of the modern law enforcement officer. Throughout the United States, Officers are empowered to use that force which is necessary to enforce the laws and apprehend criminal suspects. Law Enforcement does not "serve" a court. They do exactly what their particular state law directs them to do.
Every civilized country in the world uses a similar system, although the American model of local law enforcement with checks and balances, with all of its imperfections, seems to me to be the best.
Just for reference, see this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States
I think that you will find that everything that I posted is factual (except of course, my personal preference for the American system, that is opinion).
This is for everyone except StephanDare!, because we are not engaging each other in conversation.
The link is titled "law enforcement in the United States", as opposed to your link titled "Police". Why you would disregard the establishment of Sheriff's Offices in the 1600's is a mystery to me. The actions of both in regard to law enforcement are the same. I am not sure what the basis of your argument is whether we use the establishment of the New York City Sheriff's Office in 1626 or the establishment of the Boston Police Department in 1838.
I will disregard your accusation of dishonesty. Let's try to keep this civil.
What is your point? Are you really contending that the concept of police forces is "experimental" or are you just trying to bait me personally?
Quote from: NotNow on July 12, 2009, 08:31:57 PM
There is no civilian review board in Duval County. Federal law enforcement agencies can not enforce state and local laws.
I thought there was one but I now understand there is not. Take a look at this story: http://www.news4jax.com/news/19789424/detail.html (http://www.news4jax.com/news/19789424/detail.html)
That's why I thought there was one. There also seems to be some sort of "facebook" group also talking about a review board.
http://jaxpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/push-begins-for-police-review-board/ (http://jaxpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/push-begins-for-police-review-board/)
I think some places do have them and it may be a good idea for Jacksonville and Duval County as well.
macbeth, in Duval County (JSO specifically) the use of force by Police is reviewed by the State Attorneys Office. The "Response to Resistance" board that you hear discussed here is a board composed of senior JSO administrators who review the case AFTER the SAO has completed their investigation and ruled on it. The JSO RTR board is simply ensuring that the Officer followed the guidelines and policies of the JSO, which are more restrictive than State law.
Civilian Review Boards have historically introduced politics into what should be a clinical investigation. All of the groups that you see arguing here and on TV would want representation and the bickering quickly overpowers reason. I have seen these things at work and they are ugly. I saw somewhere where it was stated that a court found CRB's to be a violation of Officer's rights. I would agree with that and I believe we should stay away from such a thing. The SAO does a good job investigaiting and the JSO RTR Board is open to the public. You should go to one and see the process. Once again, i would also urge all on this board to participate by attending the RTR Board and attending the Civilian Academy. There you can meet our new recruits and ask them about their educational attainments yourself and get a feel for what kind of people we are putting on the street. You can take part in the same training that your Officers recieve and make an informed decision for yourself.
Without commenting on the particulars of this specific case; I have to say that people seem too willing to overlook that engaging in criminal behavior is inherently dangerous. If you decide to pursue that path there's an inherent risk that you're going to get killed, either by your victims, other criminals, or the police.
Steven, I think that is a pretty extreme example of making a molehill out of a mountain. While it can be dangerous to drive on expressways driving on I-95 is not a conscious example to disregard the legal and moral obligations we have as citizens and human beings and endeavor to do harm to our fellow man, therefore entering an underground world of less than desireable characters and danger. There are different lives of crime, and what I just described doesn't apply to all. Stupid kids spray painting a wall isn't the same.. but they are all a far sight more dire of a personal decision requiring a great deal more personal responsibility for the consequences than is choosing to drive your car in rush hour.
It would be an interesting study.. not as to raw data, because obviously an overwhelmingly higher percentage of the general population drives than does commit felonies, but percentage.... What percentage of people who drive on expressways over 5 years die. What percentage of people who regularly engage in felonious activity for a period of 5 years die as a result of "the life"? That would be a totally useless and interesting study.
Quote from: stephendare on July 13, 2009, 03:27:28 PM
sounds like driving down 95 south through baymeadows at 5.
Or JTB!
Jumping into this kind of late. My take on this is that the officer was not incompetent enough to warrant facing criminal charges, but WAS incompetent enough to warrant being fired. The people of this city deserve a professional police department and it appears this officer wasn't up to snuff.
Quote from: Mugatu on July 19, 2009, 11:02:45 PM
Jumping into this kind of late. My take on this is that the officer was not incompetent enough to warrant facing criminal charges, but WAS incompetent enough to warrant being fired. The people of this city deserve a professional police department and it appears this officer wasn't up to snuff.
Jumping into this even later than you, however, I agree the officer was incompetent. Most of us are extremely disgusted with crime, even so police can't go around shooting unarmed people. As for the reading of some of the post on this forum I wouldn't waste my time debating with some of these barbaric individuals.