Metro Jacksonville

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

if you honestly believe the police were justified in killing him, do us a favour and wear your brownshirt so we'll see you coming.  if you honestly believe the police didn't lie their rears off about eactly what happened, i've a lovely bridge to sell you in new york.

(edited to remove more personal remarks--don't want to be accused ov trolling, after all)

what, you troll  ::)  I proudly wear my brown shirt...although how that helps to see one coming, is beyond me.

For those of you unfamiliar with this incident, Kiko Battles was a convicted felon less than a year out of prison for robbery and assault. Police tried to flag him down for jaywalking, but he decided to run (probably because he was illegally packing a stolen handgun at the time). When the police caught up with him, he resisted. The police tazered him, at which point a loaded handgun fell out of Battle's pocket. The police then claim that Battle's picked up the gun and pointed it in their direction. The police then shot him dead.

Battles relatives claim that the police actually murdered him in cold blood and shot him in the back. His relatives also claim that he was unarmed. All credible evidence points to the police telling the complete truth and Battles family lying. The police officers in this incident were totally exonerated of any wrong doing. This is all well documented in multiple TU articles.

I don't really intend to comment on this issue any further. I just wanted to restate the facts of the incident for those who were unfamiliar or undecided. If someone, in all honesty, wants to believe the point of view of Sheclown, KuroiKetsunoHana, and Stephendare that is certainly their right - and I highly doubt I'll ever convince them otherwise.

Quote from: stephendare on June 17, 2010, 06:36:13 PM
Nothing that the kid did was a capital offense.

There is no 'contributory' factor to his death.

The cops could have simply let him run and issued a warrant.  No one was in danger of their lives.

It really is as simple as that.  Any justification that the cops had for shooting this kid would also justify the grandmother from having shot both cops to death to prevent her grandson's murder.

Why can't it simply be enough to recognize that this was a tragedy without being as offensive as crap?

Nothing this kid, who by the way was in his 20's, so he was an adult....and the capital offense as you put it...I guess a felon in possession of a firearm is okay? Gee, I was under the impression that's a felony and would've landed him back in jail. The contributory factor, was the gun in his hands.

As for the shooting, I suppose you were there, on the other side of the fence when he had the gun in his hand? And why didn't the cops just let him run...with a gun. Yeah, that's something we should hope that the police would do next time.

As for letting this go as just a tragedy....I can't, not when an armed felon is the subject of being memorialized. He wasn't some innocent guy, as some would have you believe. And sorry, when it comes to someone dropping a gun, stopping to pick it up and then the rest is history....in no way compares to the grandmother having the same legal rights to shot and kill police officers. Not even close.

the answer is yes and the point was proven with him being in possession of a firearm. That's a fact, and that was a felony, and would have landed him right back in prison.

I don't really care if anyone asked for my opinion, and I don't recall where you were specifically asked either...hence this being a forum. My opinion and the facts are only offensive (and certainly that's merely a personal opinion, since I violate no rules/policies), because you don't agree. What I find offensive, and of course, there goes my opinion again....is that you can somehow relate this Fred Phelps, the hateful protester who protests at the funerals of our military that have died while in service. That's pretty sad.

Again, whether or not you agree or care for my expressed thoughts, views, opinions, makes no difference and to make personal insults when none were spoken, until you stepped in with yours. I never insulted you, and would appreciate the same in return.

If having a discussion about this situation helps to memorialize them, then I suppose someone should print this all out and tack it to the fence.

To ask if the kid deserved "capital punishment" is irrelevant. The correct question is: Did the officer fear for his life and/or the life of another?

I am not convinced either way. Why is this the second time this officer has found himself with a gun pointed at him for stopping and questioning someone? Is it his demeanor? Is it common for officers to face the barrel of a gun during encounters with people?

I understand that a family will take the side of their own, just like the police often will. It looks bad to me, but I have not been the one in the line of fire.

It is not clear to me which is the case here.

A young man is dead, and that is almost always a tragedy.

Quote from: stephendare on June 17, 2010, 07:37:01 PM
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi

This is the so called 'exoneration' story.  In which a police officer is brought in front of an internal committee of the JSO and passes on their recommendation to the State Attorney.

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

There is no oversight, and is one of the many reasons that the community has demanded a citizens review board.  

That is incorrect.  The case is investigated by the State Attorney.  Once that investigation is complete, and any charges are dealt with, then the Response to Resistance Board meets to determine whether the policies of the JSO were followed.  The recommendations of the board are forwarded to the Sheriff.  The Sheriff decides whether to accept or modify any of those recommendations.  The State Attorney decides on the legality of Police shootings, and the RTR board recommends to the Sheriff whether they think any JSO policies were violated.  

I attended this RTR hearing, and it was quite clear that the Officers acted properly and within policy.  While the death of any individual is a sobering unwanted result of Police interaction, Officers have a right and duty to defend themselves and others.  I will not rehash this case again, it is covered in threads of the time.   The facts of the case were unquestionable, based on witness testimony AND physical evidence.  But as has been noted earlier, some will just refuse to observe what doesn't fit their own ideas.

Oh thank you for clearing that up and making it sooo much easier for me to comprehend. All those years of college have been for not. No, the carrying of a stolen firearm by a convicted felon would not have lead him to a death sentence. It would have been a felony charge. Which still makes no difference when you point a gun at a police officer.

You see it my saying that his actions lead to his demise, as disrespectful? And here I was stating a fact. I fail to agree with you that my comments, any of them, dishonored the dead, and really, what difference would it make, he is in fact, dead. I never said I was glad he was dead, never said anything negative about him, other than facts that he was a convicted felon with a firearm.

Now, what difference does the capital crime matter? What, the police should only have done their jobs, if they believed his actions would eventually have lead to a death sentence through trial? What would have been an end result via the court system has absolutely no bearing on what transpired.

Untrue, he had a firearm, which he pointed at the police officer...that behavior is what contributed to his death.

The source of his death:
1. the felon had a firearm and pointed it at police
2. the officer has every legal right to defend himself, and did
3. the training officers go through which then leads to knowledge and reaction to a crime in progress; which requires split second decisions based upon that training

Quote from: stephendare on June 17, 2010, 08:35:42 PM
If he did not do anything that would have legally led to his death, then his behavior did not contribute to it.

The cause of death came from two sources, the guns used by the off duty police officers and their judgement to use deadly force.

Simple as that.

Does aiming a weapon at a police officer constitute a capital crime punishable by death if convicted?... No.

It can lead to a police officer pulling out his own weapon.

The part that disturbs me is the guy was shot 9 times.

Again, I'm not in the line of fire. Perhaps my gun would commence blazing procedures if a person pointed a gun at me with the possible/probable intent to fire it.

Quote from: stephendare
Springfielder:

And your point is?

Whether or not the officer was within his 'legal rights' or not, it doesnt take away his responsibility for what happened.

And there is not, nor was there any evidence of the sort that he pointed it at the officer, in fact your claim is so ludicrous that its laughable.  Sure, SF, a boy who was tazed 'split seconds' before had the time to pick up his gun, turn and aim at a cop before being shot six times in the back.

Instead of giving both sides the benefit of the doubt, and withholding judgement, you came onto the thread and started in with your bs, and cant understand why anyone thinks you are dishonoring the dead.

Your remarks are very unflattering to you, and do not speak very well for anyone.

I don't expect you to know any better, but you arent helping out the cause of crime and justice at all.

You are the one coming into a discussion without the knowledge or training to appropriately address the situation as it happened. You are the one who came in dishing out the bs, not I. If there are any remarks made by anyone that reflects unflattering upon themselves, it's not I. So your summation is meaningless and without merit. I actually have the training, and know exactly what it is like and what the laws are that govern the duties of police officers. You, however, speak from an untrained in the field, citizen that makes assumptions without fact.

Therefore, if my facts,  based upon experience and training within the field of law enforcement, dishonor the dead by stating them....then so be it.

The case had been reviewed by the State Attorneys office, and the officers actions leading up to and including the use of deadly force were deemed within the law and justified. This has all been debated and discussed at length.

You may continue with your insults and attempts to belittle me, that's fine...enjoy yourself, at my expense, as it matters not because it still will not change the facts.

Quote from: NotNow on June 17, 2010, 08:29:16 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 17, 2010, 07:37:01 PM
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi

This is the so called 'exoneration' story.  In which a police officer is brought in front of an internal committee of the JSO and passes on their recommendation to the State Attorney.

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

There is no oversight, and is one of the many reasons that the community has demanded a citizens review board. 

That is incorrect.  The case is investigated by the State Attorney.  Once that investigation is complete, and any charges are dealt with, then the Response to Resistance Board meets to determine whether the policies of the JSO were followed.  The recommendations of the board are forwarded to the Sheriff.  The Sheriff decides whether to accept or modify any of those recommendations.  The State Attorney decides on the legality of Police shootings, and the RTR board recommends to the Sheriff whether they think any JSO policies were violated. 

I attended this RTR hearing, and it was quite clear that the Officers acted properly and within policy.  While the death of any individual is a sobering unwanted result of Police interaction, Officers have a right and duty to defend themselves and others.  I will not rehash this case again, it is covered in threads of the time.   The facts of the case were unquestionable, based on witness testimony AND physical evidence.  But as has been noted earlier, some will just refuse to observe what doesn't fit their own ideas.

Uh huh. That's not a citizen's review board...

Quote from: Springfielder on June 17, 2010, 08:30:41 PM
Oh thank you for clearing that up and making it sooo much easier for me to comprehend. All those years of college have been for not. No, the carrying of a stolen firearm by a convicted felon would not have lead him to a death sentence. It would have been a felony charge. Which still makes no difference when you point a gun at a police officer.

You see it my saying that his actions lead to his demise, as disrespectful? And here I was stating a fact. I fail to agree with you that my comments, any of them, dishonored the dead, and really, what difference would it make, he is in fact, dead. I never said I was glad he was dead, never said anything negative about him, other than facts that he was a convicted felon with a firearm.

Now, what difference does the capital crime matter? What, the police should only have done their jobs, if they believed his actions would eventually have lead to a death sentence through trial? What would have been an end result via the court system has absolutely no bearing on what transpired.

How can you say that what would have been the end result in the court system has "absolutely no bearing" on anything? That's really the whole point here, isn't it? To enforce the law. Not to deal out whatever brand of justice an off-duty cop feels entitled to give. Your comments are starting to sound like you condone any type of vigilante justice, as long as it's a cop doing the shooting. Who needs that old "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" anyway?

You need to do the self-check on this one man. If it can happen to him, then it can happen to you. I know that's a shocking thing to say in this "I don't care as long as it's not me" environment, however it's the truth. Rights cannot be selectively upheld, or else they are lost.

These officers had no business hassling the two men for nothing more than walking down a street while black. The fact that, ultimately, once they had already tasered the guy and had him knocked down on the ground, a gun fell out of his pocket, and even then that's if you believe the cop's story (they lie all the time), is completely irrelevant. None of it would have occurred had it not been for the officers' hassling him without reasonable suspicion in the first place.

The standard here is Terry v. Ohio, and requires that an officer have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed before randomly stopping people. If the officer has reasonable suspicion, he can do a quick check to ensure the suspect is unarmed. Here, the officers accosted the guy, and had already tasered him and had him knocked down on the ground. They went well beyond the scope of their constitutional authority, without justification. There were multiple witnesses besides just the boy's family, and nobody has even alleged he was doing anything except walking down the street.

Cops know the dangers inherent in their jobs when they apply for them, and no doubt know the dangers inherent in their jobs each week as they deposit their relatively hefty paychecks. I am utterly sick of the public reaction in these type of situations, where we're essentially creating a whole new class of citizen with more rights and protections (cops) simply because they perform a task they knew to be dangerous when they applied for it. An officer's safety should not be a blanket excuse to impinge upon the rights of whoever they come into contact with.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 17, 2010, 09:09:46 PM
I actually have the training, and know exactly what it is like and what the laws are that govern the duties of police officers. You, however, speak from an untrained in the field, citizen that makes assumptions without fact.

Oh you're a cop. Well that certainly explains your position on this topic. It also explains your horrible attitude...

And you really shouldn't talk down to Stephen as an "untrained citizen"...in reality that means he's your employer.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator

Quote from: SpringfielderI actually have the training, and know exactly what it is like and what the laws are that govern the duties of police officers. You, however, speak from an untrained in the field, citizen that makes assumptions without fact.

Oh you're a cop. Well that certainly explains your position on this topic. It also explains your horrible attitude...

And you really shouldn't talk down to Stephen as an "untrained citizen"...in reality that means he's your employer.

Shouldn't talk down? I wasn't, I merely stated a fact, since he is not a LEO and never had the training to become one. Oh and he's not my employer, and I'm not a member of the JSO. However, he is an untrained citizen when it comes to law enforcement. It's clear that you're not in law enforcement, which then explains your attitude as well.

As to whether my attitude being horrible...your opinion and you're entitled to it. If by my supporting the rights of law enforcement officers to use deadly force when someone points a gun at them, then yes, you're right. It by my supporting the findings of the SAO that the use of deadly force was justified and that the officer acted appropriately, then again...you're right.

The State Attorneys office investigates whenever police use deadly force. The review board is strictly intended to review whether an officer followed procedure and policies set in place. Two very different roles.

Quote from: stephendareOh.. your a cop. Well what the hell ever. How dare you weigh in on someone else's death, just to express your self serving political attitude. What a terrible person.

Im not going to stoop to your level on this issue, out of respect for this dead boys family, and you are apparently too self important to stop trying to justify your beliefs in a memorial thread about a kid who was probably too good for you to tie his shoes.

The contrast is between the silent memorial for this young kid and your mealy mouthed defense of citizen killing cops under any circumstance.

And that says it all.

Thanks Stephen, you have such a flare for slinging insults upon those you don't agree with, how classic. Just because I have law enforcement experience, I'm not allowed to have my own views and opinions? So only your opinion and those of the same mindset are acceptable? I thought this was a forum, where it's open discussion.

You clearly have your views and I have mine; which are worlds apart. That's fine, we're all entitled to have our own, and unlike you, I respect that, even when I don't agree.

As for whether this kid, who happened to have been an adult, and also happened to have been a convicted felon carrying a stolen gun, and pointed it an a police officer, is the 'kid' that may have been too good for me to tie his shoes? Okee dokee then.

Certainly, the issue of "community policing" ought to be examined in regards to "quality of life enforcements."

The policy is inherently & intentionally discriminatory.  It divides groups of people and removes protections because of a person's appearance. 

In my unbiased opinion, it looks to me like you stephendare called Springfielder a "terrible person" and "mealy mouthed" no? 

QuoteWhat a terrible person.

Quoteyour mealy mouthed

Quoteyou are apparently too self important to stop trying to justify your beliefs in a memorial thread about a kid who was probably too good for you to tie his shoes.

Of course, those are compliments, right? At no time did I make an attempt to insult you, or your opinion.

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 08:57:54 AM
Incidentally I have not spoken ill of you in any of these posts.  In fact, I have wished happiness, love and the privilege of leaving behind people who love you.  These are not belittling posts.

I am defending the rights of his family and his community to commit the simple act of mourning the boy without you having to call him names and crow about how justified his killing was.

Your comment about wishing me well, please

QuoteWell, Springfielder, I can only say that I hope someone misses you and your opinions as much as this community misses this poor dead boy.

This is what you say is wishing me well?

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 09:08:53 AM
And as the person who wrote the remarks, I can tell you that no, I didnt.
I asked what kind of person would deface the memory of the dead, and described the defense of killing under any circumstance as long as procedure was followed as mealy mouthed.

What do you have to say about calling a boy who was shot nine times in the back as a felon, or dishonestly claiming that he was aiming a gun at the cop?

Can you provide evidence/documentation that the deceased never pointed the gun at the officer?

Were there ever witnesses making this claim?

Do you think the police murdered the young man?

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 09:08:53 AM
And as the person who wrote the remarks, I can tell you that no, I didnt.
I asked what kind of person would deface the memory of the dead, and described the defense of killing under any circumstance as long as procedure was followed as mealy mouthed.

What do you have to say about calling a boy who was shot nine times in the back as a felon, or dishonestly claiming that he was aiming a gun at the cop?

Guess the SAO lied too, since they're the ones who investigated the incident. As well as other witness accounts, and of course, there's the police, who also lied. Gee, all of us who lied?

As for my defacing the dead by referring to him as a convicted felon, well...that's the truth.

and while attempting to run away, he dropped the gun and stopped to pick it up....

Which is not to say he aimed it at the police.

Sorry, I didn't add in that witnesses said he did, as did the officer, which is why he used deadly force.

I agree that other options might have existed. I don't agree that SF ever suggested the kid "deserved" to die. He did suggest that in pointing the gun at police officers, he endangered his own life, as well as the life of others.

We seem to have conflicting reports as to whether the young man pointed the gun at the officers.

Another case of he said/she said.

and all I said was "I'm sorry, but he contributed to his own demise." You're right, I never said nor implied that he deserved to die.

I understand that the original intent of this thread was to possibly help memorialize the death of this man, but once posted on a forum, it's open to comments, views and opinions of others. People have different views on the issue and that particular situation, which the purpose of posting on a forum is to invite others to respond, otherwise it would have been a statement made and the thread locked. It wasn't the case, so others responded. It is through open discussion on forums, that views, thoughts and opinions are expressed.

I'm not quite sure why the police feel they need to shoot to kill - anyone at any time.  Shoot the arm holding the gun.  Shoot the running leg.  Why shoot to kill?  

On the other hand, why would a person resist the police with nothing to hide?  Why run?

Quote from: Burn to Shine on June 18, 2010, 09:36:15 AM
I'm not quite sure why the police feel they need to shoot to kill - anyone at any time.  Shoot the arm holding the gun.  Shoot the running leg.  Why shoot to kill?  

On the other hand, why would a person resist the police with nothing to hide?  Why run?

Believe it or not, it's much more difficult to try and shoot at a hand holding a gun or at leg of someone running, than it is to aim for the torso, which is how LEO are trained.

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 09:36:20 AM

Quote from: buckethead on June 18, 2010, 09:31:10 AM
We seem to have conflicting reports as to whether the young man pointed the gun at the officers.

Another case of he said/she said.

exactly.  And in the absence of solid clearcut conclusions, the least either side can do is not cast aspersions.  Especially not in the context of a memorial for the dead.

In his first post, Springfielder did say 'I'm sorry, but he contributed to his own demise.'  and then later said that yes, he did commit a capital offense that deserved death.

That's untrue. Show where I said that he deserved death...I never said that.

That is the one fact that keeps ringing in my head... 9 shots.


Well I'm sorry for my part in derailing a memorial thread into a heated debate.

RIP.

One has to remember, we're talking about adrenaline racing and using an automatic weapon. It's actually quite easy to pop off that many rounds.

As to the question, could the officer have aimed for legs or some other nonlethal body part when firing 9 rounds...if the officer is in a position where they can stop, take time to carefully aim and fire (as like on the firing range) sure, that's possible. However, LEO are trained to aim at the torso, it's a 'larger area' to aim for.

I can see that. Two guys firing.

At what range were the shots fired?

I'm just glad I'm not in that line of work.

I don't recall the distance between the two...so I cannot respond to that. It would be in the official report.

You're right, Stephen, it's too easy...and it was the decision of most police departments to switch from the old 38 revolver to a Glock. Not only is it faster and easier, but it also makes the police, in general, more decently armed since the majority of others with firearms use automatic weapons.

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 09:56:10 AM
(in white neighborhoods, this would be considered Libertarian)

So true.  :)

QuoteIt does no good to claim anyone knows what was inside officer nobles head.  At least he still has the freedom and ability to tell his side of the story.  Kiko however, is dead, and cannot defend himself from the claims of an uninvolved ex cop.

Or from an untrained citizen that wasn't there. Which is exactly why the SAO investigates all cases involving the use of deadly force. All witnesses are interviewed, and the entire situation from start to finish (merely an expression) is investigated. It was through this investigation that the officer(s) were cleared of any criminal act, then the review board (which is open to the public to attend) investigated for any violation of policy and procedures, and they also found no wrong doing...and the case was closed.

Facts of the case, and I also clarified that it was a felony, not a capital offense.

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 09:56:10 AM
They got mouthy (in white neighborhoods, this would be considered Libertarian) and then the cops broke out the handcuffs.  Kiko, knowing that he was holding a gun illegally, ran.  He got tazered, tripped over, the gun fell out, he went to grab it and run,

I think as an adult, when walking around with an illegal gun, one should be aware of potential consequences.

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 11:33:03 AM
those are the potential consequences.

Doesnt mention anything about being shot nine times in the back in front of your grandmother.

What was listed here is the punishment if caught and convicted. The consequences are much broader than that. The use of deadly force (in response) is much more likely when you are in possession of a gun, as the possession itself implies that one is prepared to use deadly force. Otherwise why have a gun, especially an illegal one.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 07:18:05 AM
The State Attorneys office investigates whenever police use deadly force. The review board is strictly intended to review whether an officer followed procedure and policies set in place. Two very different roles.

Yeah, the problem is that around here, it all boils down to SAO/JSO policing itself.

In most other cities this large, there is a completely independent review board comprised of private citizens. Our board is comprised entirely of...guess what...other police officers. Doesn't really seem that "independent" now does it?

The reason an independent board is generally valued is because most places have, you know, figured out 50 years ago what COJ apparently still hasn't. That forcing the police to police themselves never works.

And as far as the independence of the SAO, that's a joke. Your union had Shorstein voted out of office citing a "lack of cooperation" because he actually had the nerve to prosecute a couple officers, and because, when you guys would over charge people as though the constitution and doctrine of merger doesn't exist, he'd drop it. Corey is well aware of how she won the election, and with who's help. She's not going to bust JSO's chops. Neither is JSO's silly little board comprised entirely of other LEO's.

Stephen was right in calling for an INDEPENDENT  review board comprised of CITIZENS. It's the same logic you cops use every day..."if you got nothin' to hide, then what's the problem?"

Quote from: AlexS on June 18, 2010, 11:46:46 AM

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 11:33:03 AM
those are the potential consequences.

Doesnt mention anything about being shot nine times in the back in front of your grandmother.

What was listed here is the punishment if caught and convicted. The consequences are much broader than that. The use of deadly force (in response) is much more likely when you are in possession of a gun, as the possession itself implies that one is prepared to use deadly force. Otherwise why have a gun, especially an illegal one.

Which they wouldn't have discovered, except for violating his constitutional rights in the first place.

If battles had been prosecuted for gun possession, rather than shot 9 times (in the back...according to the autopsy report...or is the coroner lying along with all the eyewitnesses?), then the evidence quite likely would have been excluded due to the illegal stop. The officers lacked reasonable suspicion that any crime was being committed. By all accounts, they were simply walking down the street.

Quote from: stephendareIt wouldn't.  Very profound, thanks for the comments.  Namecalling the dead is even worse.

there was no name calling, he was referred to as a convicted felon, which is true.

Quote from: buckethead on June 18, 2010, 09:11:41 AM

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 09:08:53 AM
And as the person who wrote the remarks, I can tell you that no, I didnt.
I asked what kind of person would deface the memory of the dead, and described the defense of killing under any circumstance as long as procedure was followed as mealy mouthed.

What do you have to say about calling a boy who was shot nine times in the back as a felon, or dishonestly claiming that he was aiming a gun at the cop?

Can you provide evidence/documentation that the deceased never pointed the gun at the officer?

Were there ever witnesses making this claim?

Do you think the police murdered the young man?

You have the burden of proof on the wrong foot, there...

The cops are *supposed* to have to justify the use of deadly force, not the other way around. However, here in JAX, the bar is set disproportionately low. As long as there is some shred of a believable story, then JSO's "Review Board" (comprised entirely of cops) and our SAO (who got elected because of cops) sign off on it.

IMHO, it's just not acceptable.

Quote from: ChriswUfGatorIf battles had been prosecuted for gun possession, rather than shot 9 times (in the back...according to the autopsy report...or is the coroner lying along with all the eyewitnesses?), then the evidence quite likely would have been excluded due to the illegal stop. The officers lacked reasonable suspicion that any crime was being committed. By all accounts, they were simply walking down the street.

Just what constitutional rights were violated? It was a legal stop, whether or not we agree with it, it's actually on the books.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 09:39:35 AM

Quote from: Burn to Shine on June 18, 2010, 09:36:15 AM
I'm not quite sure why the police feel they need to shoot to kill - anyone at any time.  Shoot the arm holding the gun.  Shoot the running leg.  Why shoot to kill? 

On the other hand, why would a person resist the police with nothing to hide?  Why run?

Believe it or not, it's much more difficult to try and shoot at a hand holding a gun or at leg of someone running, than it is to aim for the torso, which is how LEO are trained.

They shot him 9 times in the back.  Are LEO's being trained to unload 9 rounds into someone's back?

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 12:03:09 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGatorIf battles had been prosecuted for gun possession, rather than shot 9 times (in the back...according to the autopsy report...or is the coroner lying along with all the eyewitnesses?), then the evidence quite likely would have been excluded due to the illegal stop. The officers lacked reasonable suspicion that any crime was being committed. By all accounts, they were simply walking down the street.

Just what constitutional rights were violated? It was a legal stop, whether or not we agree with it, it's actually on the books.

I already cited the controlling SCOTUS opinion 3 or 4 pages ago.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

The stop was legal, it's on the books, which meant the officers were allowed to stop them. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) does not apply, since there was cause to stop them.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 12:09:54 PM
The stop was legal, it's on the books, which meant the officers were allowed to stop them.

The law on this issue was made by the case I cited above, which established what's generally referred to in legal circles as a "Terry Stop". You've no doubt received training on this. The law on this point was, as the name would suggest, and not from pure coincidence, formed by Terry v. Ohio. Reasonable suspicion is required.

These two men were simply walking down a street. What in those circumstances would possibly indicate that reasonable suspicion to stop them and conduct any kind of investigation would have existed? Where are you seeing anything that would have given rise to reasonable suspicion?

Didn't realize walking down a street while black was a crime...

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 12:09:54 PM
The stop was legal, it's on the books, which meant the officers were allowed to stop them. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) does not apply, since there was cause to stop them.

OK, well, I guess you and I disagree on this one...

You apparently believe the officers did not have to rely on reasonable suspsicion because they had probable cause, which is actually a higher standard. I don't even see where they had reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause, all they were doing was walking down the street. Nobody has even alleged they were doing anything else.

I'll ask again, what facts here would indicate that either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop these men from going about their business existed? I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't believe that walking down the street while black is a crime.

I didn't say that I agree with the law, but it's on the books and walking down the street (not on the pavement) is a violation. This is what was the probable cause to stop them. I'm only saying what the law allows, and in this case, it allowed the officers to stop them. This is why the case law you cited is not applicable, because in the letter of the law, there was probable cause.

Now for my personal opinion, I feel it's one of those laws that should've been removed years ago...and it only lends itself to being able to stop someone when there's no other legal means/cause to do so. As I said, I didn't say that I agree with the law, but it just happens to be a violation of the law to walk in the street and not the pavement.

It's also to my understanding that the sidewalk is either covered by weeds, or not completely in tact...and if there is no sidewalk, then the family of the deceased can call for a federal investigation upon the violation of civil rights. Whether they've done so, I couldn't say.

Quote from: stephendare
There were no sidewalks available where they were stopped.  Just where he was shot in the back 9 times.

I find it ironic that a thread about the mourning has turned into a five page rant by an LEO exulting in how awesome it is to shoot felons to death.

I must've missed those posts where someone, anyone has expressed anything wonderful, positive or anything that could be misconstrued as such.

There was no probable cause. There wasn't even reasonable suspicion.

And if you're referring to F.S. 856.021, that still requires reasonable suspicion at minimum. The operative language is "...under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity."

also, in subsection (2);

"No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern."

So again, we are back to the standard set by Terry. Which is reasonable suspicion. I know you LEO's like to think this statute is a blanket blessing on "stop and identify" orders, but in reality the language takes great pains to point out that this is not the case, and that the LEO's stop order would be unlawful in the event that there was no reasonable suspicion that crime was imminent, or if the explantion given at trial by the defendant would have dispelled that suspicion.  

So again, I'll ask, what about two men walking down the street would have given rise to reasonable suspicion?

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 12:22:23 PM
I didn't say that I agree with the law, but it's on the books and walking down the street (not on the pavement) is a violation. This is what was the probable cause to stop them. I'm only saying what the law allows, and in this case, it allowed the officers to stop them. This is why the case law you cited is not applicable, because in the letter of the law, there was probable cause.

I think you missed the part of the article that said the two officers were in the private employment of S.P.A.R., and were off-duty, when this incident occurred. In their capacity as private employees of S.P.A.R., it is questionable that they would have the authority to issue a jaywalking citation. Had they witnessed a crime, or had they a reasonable belief that one were about to take place, then they can certainly act, as officers are never truly considered "off duty" for those purposes. But enforcing a municpal ordinance that assesses a $15 fine for jaywalking doesn't constitute a crime within the meaning of Terry.

If that's where you're getting your probable cause from, it's questionable. Interesting issue, though. Which will be litigated, since Battle's family sued JSO for wrongful death, if I recall correctly.

It's irrelevant that the officers were hired via SPAR, they were still working as police officers. Contrary to what some may think, they were not privates citizens working as security guards.

QuoteTitle XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

316.130 Pedestrians; traffic regulations.--

(1) A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device specifically applicable to the pedestrian unless otherwise directed by a police officer.

(2) Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic control signals at intersections as provided in s. 316.075, but at all other places pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and be subject to the restrictions stated in this chapter.

(3) Where sidewalks are provided, no pedestrian shall, unless required by other circumstances, walk along and upon the portion of a roadway paved for vehicular traffic.

and again, it was a legal stop

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 12:48:40 PM
It's irrelevant that the officers were hired via SPAR, they were still working as police officers. Contrary to what some may think, they were not privates citizens working as security guards.

QuoteTitle XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

316.130 Pedestrians; traffic regulations.--

(1) A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device specifically applicable to the pedestrian unless otherwise directed by a police officer.

(2) Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic control signals at intersections as provided in s. 316.075, but at all other places pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and be subject to the restrictions stated in this chapter.

(3) Where sidewalks are provided, no pedestrian shall, unless required by other circumstances, walk along and upon the portion of a roadway paved for vehicular traffic.

and again, it was a legal stop

Again. No. It wasn't.

Quote(3) Where sidewalks are provided, no pedestrian shall, unless required by other circumstances, walk along and upon the portion of a roadway paved for vehicular traffic.

There were no sidewalks there. And there was no reasonable suspicion. Illegal stop, IMO.

I was under the impression that the sidewalk may not have been in good condition, but there are sections of sidewalk there. Whether or not there was sidewalk exactly along side where the two men were stopped, I don't know...none of us do. All of that would've come up during the investigation by the SAO. Since there is sidewalk, (even if it's in bad shape, which apparently it is/was) then the stop is legal. If there is/was no sidewalk at all, then yes, the stop would have been questionable.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 01:09:24 PM
I was under the impression that the sidewalk may not have been in good condition, but there are sections of sidewalk there. Whether or not there was sidewalk exactly along side where the two men were stopped, I don't know...none of us do. All of that would've come up during the investigation by the SAO. Since there is sidewalk, (even if it's in bad shape, which apparently it is/was) then the stop is legal. If there is/was no sidewalk at all, then yes, the stop would have been questionable.

The sidewalk would need to be passable.

In my recollection, there are several sections of missing sidewalk, or else it was never installed there to begin with. No way to know which, really. Additionally, even if the sidewalk was there, but was in a deteriorated condition such that it wasn't passable, then a sidewalk was still not provided under the wording of the statute. That would violate the substantive due process requirement, to provide an unpassable sidewalk and then stop people for jaywalking. Wouldn't make it 2 minutes in court.

You can't string a rope over a gorge and call it a sidewalk. What's there needs to be suitable for its intended purpose, or else it wasn't provided.

We're saying the same thing, so in this, we're in agreement. I'm just saying the the specifics of the condition of the sidewalk would have been part of the SAO investigation and would certainly be part of any in Federal probe into a civil rights violation

I remember using Google Streetview when this was originally discussed to check the sidewalks. They were not at all contiguous. I don't remember the exact street location now though.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 01:13:51 PM
We're saying the same thing, so in this, we're in agreement. I'm just saying the the specifics of the condition of the sidewalk would have been part of the SAO investigation and would certainly be part of any in Federal probe into a civil rights violation

Well, the civil rights act is generally civilly enforced in these situations, under section 1983. Which I believe is being done, as they have sued JSO. However, the SAO investigation, and JSO's "Review Board" comprised of other cops, are both a total joke and everyone knows it. If there was some random paving stone that someone threw into a vacant yard, Corey wouldn't have a problem calling it a sidewalk.

I happen to lean strongly towards doing what other municipalities have done, and having these issued governed by a true independent review board, not a "board" that is entirely comprised of all cops who determine the fate of other cops. JSO's "board" has literally, in the entirety of its existence, never determined a single time that a shooting wasn't justified.

And this is the same board, FYI, that routinely labels police-involved deaths "self-inflicted" to avoid paying civil damages. I'd really love to see someone shoot and kill themselves...9 times...in the back. That must be some magic trick indeed!

Quote from: LunicanI remember using Google Streetview when this was originally discussed to check the sidewalks. They were not at all contiguous. I don't remember the exact street location now though.

If memory serves me, it was around the 18th and Laura

The review board doesn't determine anything other than policy/procedures. It's only the SAO that decides if a shooting was justified or not. So a review compiled of citizens would then have to replace the SAO from the equation.

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 01:15:58 PM
Chris, did you visit the scene at the time?   StephenDare!, what witness testimony have you heard personally?  Did either of you attend the Response to Resistance hearing, which contrary to StephenDare!'s claim, is open to the public?  

We all know the answers.  This is a censored and biased forum.  There is no exchange of ideas to be had here.  Go to another forum.

I drive by there all the time. Of course I looked, there were missing sidewalks. Google earth has been updated since that time, no doubt, but at the time I also remember looking at that and it clearly showed missing sidewalks.

As far as the forum goes, this isn't a public meeting, it's a privately owned website. If you don't like the people running it, go start your own. FWIW, I don't think it's biased, they just have a lot of trolls around here. That guy obviously only joined here just to screw with Stephen, he has a whopping 20 posts, all of them talking about Stephen being a jerkwad.

Removing that kind of content isn't "censorship" it's just necessary to keep the place running. If they let every moronic post like that stay, this place would turn into the hell that is Jacksonville.com and I'd have to quit coming here and reading anything because it'd be too irritating.

Let the courts decide.  If Kiko's relatives filed suit against JSO then let the court decide.  Sounds to me like both sides have a case... Let the courts decide already.

The courts will decide. However, there's nothing wrong with it being discussed, I find it interesting.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 01:22:44 PM
The review board doesn't determine anything other than policy/procedures. It's only the SAO that decides if a shooting was justified or not. So a review compiled of citizens would then have to replace the SAO from the equation.

SAO could do their thing separately if they wanted. They're the SAO, they have the right to investigate and prosecute crimes within their circuit. You can't really get rid of that, it's technically their constitutional job description. But the JSO "board" could definitely go, it's completely non-objective and represents a total waste of taxpayer money.

Moreover, an independent review board would help prevent repeat occurrences of this kind of situation, by holding officers to reasonable standards, and would be a useful publicity tool. Everyone knows the current setup is grossly unfair and represents a fox guarding the henhouse. Couldn't hurt to remove that black eye from the equation. If, as we've been told all along, JSO is indeed acting properly, then there should be no problem for anyone.

On that, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's a good idea to have people who are not trained in the field to judge. I know that many want a civilian review board, and I understand their reasoning...don't agree with it, but understand it. I also feel that the review board isn't always as kind to the officers that are sitting before them.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 18, 2010, 01:24:25 PM
Let the courts decide.  If Kiko's relatives filed suit against JSO then let the court decide.  Sounds to me like both sides have a case... Let the courts decide already.

I don't think that discussing this on a message board is going to stop a judge from moving the case forward. I don't see how discussing something online is impeding the movement of the wheels of justice.

Moreover, civil settlements are generally confidential. Odds are, we'll never hear about it. One more reason why I think a citizen's review board is a wonderful idea. Government owes the public a legitimate explanation and response when things like this occur, and under our current setup, none is being provided.

What sidewalks are there, are hazardous and not maintained.  There are stretches of land without any sidewalks at all.

Here's a wider view of the first pic.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4021/4711794491_c070d0386b.jpg)

If I get a chance, I'll go by and take a photo of the sidewalk options, but...trust me... they are few.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 18, 2010, 01:18:56 PM

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 01:13:51 PM
We're saying the same thing, so in this, we're in agreement. I'm just saying the the specifics of the condition of the sidewalk would have been part of the SAO investigation and would certainly be part of any in Federal probe into a civil rights violation

Well, the civil rights act is generally civilly enforced in these situations, under section 1983. Which I believe is being done, as they have sued JSO. However, the SAO investigation, and JSO's "Review Board" comprised of other cops, are both a total joke and everyone knows it. If there was some random paving stone that someone threw into a vacant yard, Corey wouldn't have a problem calling it a sidewalk.

I happen to lean strongly towards doing what other municipalities have done, and having these issued governed by a true independent review board, not a "board" that is entirely comprised of all cops who determine the fate of other cops. JSO's "board" has literally, in the entirety of its existence, never determined a single time that a shooting wasn't justified.

And this is the same board, FYI, that routinely labels police-involved deaths "self-inflicted" to avoid paying civil damages. I'd really love to see someone shoot and kill themselves...9 times...in the back. That must be some magic trick indeed!

This is, like most of the statements you have posted here , untrue.  The SAO investigation is independent of the JSO and determines whether a police involved shooting is within the law.  If you don't like how the SAO is doing their job then you can make a complaint to the FBI.  You should know this if you are really a lawyer.

The JSO review is strictly to assess if a police involved shooting is within JSO Policies, which are more strict than state law.  The Sheriff, and only the Sheriff, can apply administrative penalties upon an Officer (suspension or dismissal).   The board has no authority to and does not "label" any death "self inflicted".  What are you referring to?  Or are you just making it up as you go along?  You obviously have no idea of how police shootings are investigated.  You are speaking out of bias and not from facts.  Use that legal education and do some research before making such false statements. 

Other cities (not most, as you allege) have developed a "citizen review" that makes recommendations to an appointed Police Chief, not a constitutional Officer.  These are subject to the same politics and vagaries as other city "commissions" and are commonly used as political sledgehammers instead of investigative tools.  

The JSO Review board has recommended discipline many times, including dismissal, and the Sheriff has acted on those recommendations.  Why don't you do some research before making erroneous statements?   You see, facts are important.

When will the legal profession have citizen review of their actions?

I'll repeat myself.  Had any of you bothered to actually go to the scene, or even attend the review board, you would have seen physical evidence and heard actual testimony of witnesses.  The facts were quite clear when observed and "personal opinion" and "rumor" were removed.  

And, if you really believe that the stop that day was "unconstitutional", then you should offer to represent the family.  It is obvious that when an infraction is directly observed by an Officer that he has a right to detain.  What law school did you go to?

Are you stating that the image that you provided is the place where the two men were forced to walk in the street because the sidewalk was not adequate?  What is that exact address?

No, what I am stating is that the sidewalks, in that area, are in disrepair, if they exist at all.  As far as the exact location of the shooting, I don't know.  I believe it was posted on this forum a year ago. I believe it began in one location and ended in another, but perhaps a link to the earlier thread would be in order here.

I would imagine that the memorial is at least representative of the shooting, if not the location of the shooting itself (but that is only an assumption). 

The memorial has been intact since the day of the shooting.  It is quite easy to find. West 18th Street between Main and Pearl, south side of the road.

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 02:36:48 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 18, 2010, 01:18:56 PM

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 01:13:51 PM
We're saying the same thing, so in this, we're in agreement. I'm just saying the the specifics of the condition of the sidewalk would have been part of the SAO investigation and would certainly be part of any in Federal probe into a civil rights violation

Well, the civil rights act is generally civilly enforced in these situations, under section 1983. Which I believe is being done, as they have sued JSO. However, the SAO investigation, and JSO's "Review Board" comprised of other cops, are both a total joke and everyone knows it. If there was some random paving stone that someone threw into a vacant yard, Corey wouldn't have a problem calling it a sidewalk.

I happen to lean strongly towards doing what other municipalities have done, and having these issued governed by a true independent review board, not a "board" that is entirely comprised of all cops who determine the fate of other cops. JSO's "board" has literally, in the entirety of its existence, never determined a single time that a shooting wasn't justified.

And this is the same board, FYI, that routinely labels police-involved deaths "self-inflicted" to avoid paying civil damages. I'd really love to see someone shoot and kill themselves...9 times...in the back. That must be some magic trick indeed!

This is, like most of the statements you have posted here , untrue.  The SAO investigation is independent of the JSO and determines whether a police involved shooting is within the law.  If you don't like how the SAO is doing their job then you can make a complaint to the FBI.  You should know this if you are really a lawyer.

The JSO review is strictly to assess if a police involved shooting is within JSO Policies, which are more strict than state law.  The Sheriff, and only the Sheriff, can apply administrative penalties upon an Officer (suspension or dismissal).   The board has no authority to and does not "label" any death "self inflicted".  What are you referring to?  Or are you just making it up as you go along?  You obviously have no idea of how police shootings are investigated.  You are speaking out of bias and not from facts.  Use that legal education and do some research before making such false statements. 

Other cities (not most, as you allege) have developed a "citizen review" that makes recommendations to an appointed Police Chief, not a constitutional Officer.  These are subject to the same politics and vagaries as other city "commissions" and are commonly used as political sledgehammers instead of investigative tools. 

The JSO Review board has recommended discipline many times, including dismissal, and the Sheriff has acted on those recommendations.  Why don't you do some research before making erroneous statements?   You see, facts are important.

When will the legal profession have citizen review of their actions?

I'll repeat myself.  Had any of you bothered to actually go to the scene, or even attend the review board, you would have seen physical evidence and heard actual testimony of witnesses.  The facts were quite clear when observed and "personal opinion" and "rumor" were removed. 

And, if you really believe that the stop that day was "unconstitutional", then you should offer to represent the family.  It is obvious that when an infraction is directly observed by an Officer that he has a right to detain.  What law school did you go to?

So did you not actually read what I've written, or are you just this dumb?

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it's the former, then why don't you re-read what I've written. It's plain as day that I've never said the SAO and JSO are one and the same, and I'm clearly aware of who does what.

My issue is that our current state attorney isn't independent, since she ran on a platform of "supporting law enforcement" and, indeed, the JSO's union was responsible for getting Shorstein voted out of office. She knows what side her bread is buttered on. That's not "independent" in my book.

Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct.

Which is why I'm still suggesting an independent citizen review board.

And why don't you find me all my other "untrue" statements. I have faith that you can at least work a search function, even if reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. To my knowledge I've not said anything untrue here, and if I were wrong about something then I'm happy to be corrected. So enlighten me...

unfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 02:41:52 PM
Are you stating that the image that you provided is the place where the two men were forced to walk in the street because the sidewalk was not adequate?  What is that exact address?

No, that's not the same place at all...you're right, sheclown tried to mislead everyone and you caught her!

Because, you know, it's just so common for people to put up flowers, flags, cards, candles, and a big memorial at some random place where NOBODY DIED...

Seriously, are you kidding? This has got to be a joke, right? What IS the deal with your nonsensical posts?

You are on the mark, Kurol, except for one point. No on suggested the kid deserved to be killed, but that it was a tragic result of his very poor decision.

At least that's how I'm reading it. I won't presume all cops liars or all kids thugs. Either is unfair.

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on June 18, 2010, 05:25:30 PM
unfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

Well, believe it or not, sometimes I agree with the cops, and other times I think they're out of line.

In this particular case, I think they were way out of line. They accosted this guy for doing nothing more than walking down the street while black. And they did so without reasonable suspicion, and without any valid jaywalking argument since the lack of passable sidewalks in that area makes the jaywalking argument total nonsense.

Here's an obvious fact, for everyone who is arguing that he deserved it. People don't put up memorials to felons who go down in a gun battle against the righteous arm of the law. The neighborhood clearly knows what it saw, and you wouldn't see such an outpouring of grief if this guy had really tried to take out two cops and they lawfully returned fire in self-defense.

But I'd just love for someone to explain to me how shooting someone in the back 9 times as they're already trying to retreat could possibly have been "self-defense". Kind of a fly in the ointment there, no? I can't be the only one who sees that this makes no sense...

Please point out where anyone has stated he "deserved" it.

Sir, "a wider view" of the original picture infers that the image is indicative of where the two men in question had to "walk in the road" to avoid some kind of blockage.  I was simply pointing out that neither she, nor you, know where that point actually is.  

Why would you call me "dumb", when you claim to be an attorney and you seem to not comprehend the procedures involved here.  You speak of Angela Corey as if she is personally conducting these investigations.  You are assuming that her employees and her are willing to LIE in order to maintain some relationship with the police.  Yet you offer no evidence of any such lie, and are unwilling to complain to the FBI of such malfeasance.  You don't even seem to be aware of the facts of the case.  

1.  You claim the detention was unconstitutional.  The Officer observed a violation of the law and detained the violators.  Your statement is untrue.  If you think the sidewalk was not adequate, show us how.  The SAO and RTR Board looked at the area that the Officers, witnesses, and the other man stopped pointed out.  Multiple images were provided at the JSO Board hearing.  

2.  You claim the JSO RTR Board "routinely labels police-involved deaths "self-inflicted" to avoid paying civil damages."  The RTR Board can not declare any death "self inflicted" and has never done so.

3.  I see you deleted your claim that the JSO Board had never found fault with any shooting.  Thanks for at least deleting incorrect information.

My posts are factual and I don't call names.  Your tendency towards drama and name calling in posting, along with just plain WRONG information says something else.  Are you REALLY a lawyer?

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHanaunfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

Sorry, but that's a completely untrue statement. There are plenty of us who may tend to take sides, as it were, but it's not always for the same side. I know for myself, I have defended what appeared to be appropriate actions taken by law enforcement, and I've also spoken up when I felt their actions were not. There's bad apples in every grouping, law enforcement included. I'm nobody's fool and certainly don't automatically take sides, as you seem to think we all do. I prefer to review the facts as I know them, read them, view them and make my own educated summations.

It is called "prejudice".  And it is quite common on this forum. 

Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: \ˈpre-jə-dəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment â€" more at judicial
Date: 13th century
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

synonyms see predilection

Quote from: buckethead on June 18, 2010, 05:47:04 PM
Please point out where anyone has stated he "deserved" it.

springfielder's first post, for starters.  he didn't use those exact words, but his meaning was clear.

and okay, okay, so not everyöne's as entrenched on their side ov the fence as i thought.  'pologies, there--aside from your own refutations, i haven't seen any evidence ov anyöne taking things on a case-by-case basis.  for my part, it's hard to believe anything that comes from JSO as long as 'bodybags' rutherford is in charge.

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on June 18, 2010, 05:25:30 PM
unfortunately, we're all on one side ov the fence or the other--some ov us won't ever believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky is blue, and some ov us will always believe the cops, even if they tell us the sky made ov ice cream.

group (a) will always feel that kiko battles' murder* was a senseless tragedy.  group (b) will always maintain that he deserved it.

*wearing a blue uniform doesn't magically make someöne not a murderer.

This ignores the fact that a complete and thorough investigation by the SAO found the Officers acted within the law.  ALL of the witnesses, not just the family of the suspect, should be heard.  

To ignore the facts makes you guilty of exactly what you are accusing the SAO and JSO of.  

Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on June 18, 2010, 06:04:48 PM

Quote from: buckethead on June 18, 2010, 05:47:04 PM
Please point out where anyone has stated he "deserved" it.

springfielder's first post, for starters.  he didn't use those exact words, but his meaning was clear.

and okay, okay, so not everyöne's as entrenched on their side ov the fence as i thought.  'pologies, there--aside from your own refutations, i haven't seen any evidence ov anyöne taking things on a case-by-case basis.  for my part, it's hard to believe anything that comes from JSO as long as 'bodybags' rutherford is in charge.

My first post:

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

Where exactly did I say that he deserved it? I didn't, nor implied it, don't try to change my post into fitting your agenda

Quote from: Springfielder on June 17, 2010, 02:23:00 PM
I'm sorry, but he contributed to his own demise.

I read nothing in this that makes any reference to whether he deserved to die. Only that he contributed to his own demise. Sorry to repeat exactly, but there it is.

If the event did happen as reported, that would just be a simple fact.

I've seen a couple jerk cops in action, and I don't doubt that there haven't been cops guilty of murder/homicide.

It has not been proven to be the case here, but it still seems like other alternatives were available. (At least to me, an untrained civilian and parent) I can also see it from the officer's side.

Pointing a gun at another armed person is a deadly business. The only real issues here are:

1) Did the officers have the authority to stop the man.

2) Did the man aim, or attempt to aim the weapon at the officers?

We can only hope the real truth is clearly proven in court. As I understand it, courts have already ruled in the favor of the officers in question.

A family and community can still mourn the loss of a son, in spite of any poor decisions or unwise actions.

No, the SAO decides whether the Officers actions were within the law.  

The JSO RTR Board decides whether the Officers actions were within JSO policy.  

ChrisWUFGator said:
"Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct. "

Apparently wrong again.  :D

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 06:07:16 PM

Quote from: Springfielder on June 17, 2010, 07:52:29 PM
Nothing this kid, who by the way was in his 20's, so he was an adult....and the capital offense as you put it...I guess a felon in possession of a firearm is okay? Gee, I was under the impression that's a felony and would've landed him back in jail. The contributory factor, was the gun in his hands.

As for letting this go as just a tragedy....I can't, not when an armed felon is the subject of being memorialized. He wasn't some innocent guy, as some would have you believe. And sorry, when it comes to someone dropping a gun, stopping to pick it up and then the rest is history....in no way compares to the grandmother having the same legal rights to shot and kill police officers. Not even close.

and your point is? I still did not say anyone deserved to die

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 06:15:57 PM
I posted it for you Springfielder.  You said you couldnt just let it go as a tragedy,...since people were memorializing a felon.  Don't try and backpedal from your statements now.

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

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
not even when the "others" is your own post.

Not very impressive.

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

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 06:15:50 PM
No, the SAO decides whether the Officers actions were within the law.  

The JSO RTR Board decides whether the Officers actions were within JSO policy.  

ChrisWUFGator said:
"Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct. "

Apparently wrong again.  :D

Actually, I haven't been wrong yet.

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

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 06:16:49 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 06:07:16 PM

Quote from: Springfielder on June 17, 2010, 07:52:29 PM
Nothing this kid, who by the way was in his 20's, so he was an adult....and the capital offense as you put it...I guess a felon in possession of a firearm is okay? Gee, I was under the impression that's a felony and would've landed him back in jail. The contributory factor, was the gun in his hands.

As for letting this go as just a tragedy....I can't, not when an armed felon is the subject of being memorialized. He wasn't some innocent guy, as some would have you believe. And sorry, when it comes to someone dropping a gun, stopping to pick it up and then the rest is history....in no way compares to the grandmother having the same legal rights to shot and kill police officers. Not even close.

and your point is? I still did not say anyone deserved to die

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

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

Your words, not mine at all

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

This ignores the fact that a complete and thorough investigation by the SAO found the Officers acted within the law.  ALL of the witnesses, not just the family of the suspect, should be heard.  



This is an intentional overstatement.

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

What the review board found was that

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even more reason to implement a Citizen Review Board immediately.

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

Quote from: stephendare on June 18, 2010, 06:29:20 PM
except that they all are.  are you really going to be so tiresome as to make them be requoted?  You might as well own up to them.  They are your words, after all.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 17, 2010, 07:52:29 PM
Nothing this kid, who by the way was in his 20's, so he was an adult....and the capital offense as you put it...I guess a felon in possession of a firearm is okay? Gee, I was under the impression that's a felony and would've landed him back in jail. The contributory factor, was the gun in his hands.

As for letting this go as just a tragedy....I can't, not when an armed felon is the subject of being memorialized. He wasn't some innocent guy, as some would have you believe. And sorry, when it comes to someone dropping a gun, stopping to pick it up and then the rest is history

Quote from: Springfielder on June 18, 2010, 06:14:45 PM
I'm sorry, but he contributed to his own demise.

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

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 18, 2010, 06:22:10 PM

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 06:15:50 PM
No, the SAO decides whether the Officers actions were within the law.  

The JSO RTR Board decides whether the Officers actions were within JSO policy.  

ChrisWUFGator said:
"Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct. "

Apparently wrong again.  :D

Actually, I haven't been wrong yet.

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

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

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

It wins awards.

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

But talking about these things is important.

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

I will type slowly. Please pay attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 06:34:17 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on June 18, 2010, 06:22:10 PM

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 06:15:50 PM
No, the SAO decides whether the Officers actions were within the law. 

The JSO RTR Board decides whether the Officers actions were within JSO policy. 

ChrisWUFGator said:
"Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct. "

Apparently wrong again.  :D

Actually, I haven't been wrong yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: NotNow on June 19, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
I think "credibility" is self explanatory in the preceding posts.  I think the truth is obvious as well.

This is the one statement you've made that I actually agree with...

Quote from: NotNow on June 18, 2010, 11:48:21 PM
I don't "imply".  And I have no idea what you are trying to say.  There is no evidence of any civil rights violation.  If you have some, then make the call to the FBI.  Otherwise you guys are just more people spouting off on the internet.

StephenDare!, I'll just go out on a limb here and say that it appears that you have no training OR experience in this area.  You are arguing for the sake of arguing.  Do you have something to say that really affects this case?  It has been investigated and reviewed.  I have explained over and over how to file a civil rights complaint if you have one.  I have tried to offer you an opportunity to admit you misspoke and (as usual) you refuse to EVER admit that you MIGHT be mistaken.   I don't know what else I can do to make the process more clear.  I hope that this information helps those reading this that are more thoughtful.   

Seems like Stephen's asking a relatively simple question.

According to you, the SAO completed a "thorough investigation" that completely exonerated the officers, and yet nobody except for you can find any evidence or statement from the SAO on that. And you've continually failed to provide a link to any supporting evidence for your assertion, despite being asked repeatedly.

Additionally, you attempted to imply that an independent review board had looked at the matter, when really it's simply JSO's rubber-stamp panel of 5 other cops that is notorious for never finding that a shooting wasn't justified by department policy.

Then you imply that there were no civil rights violations because the FBI hasn't investigated it, apparently without realizing that these are most often dealt with in civil court under the private right of action granted in 42 U.S.C. 1983, which I'd be willing you bet you had never even heard of until I mentioned it and you googled it.

Stephen points out these obvious inconsistencies in your statements, and in response you deem his questions "disgusting" and continue dancing around the issues without acknowledging them. I am starting to agree, this debate is pointless. Your responses fail to address the issues, and are frankly nonsensical.

I tried to find where it was reported the officer(s) were cleared....this is what I found

QuoteA State Attorney's Office review of the shooting found it was justified. The review board found that the officers didn't violate any departmental policies or procedures and don't face discipline or retraining.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi)

This is from right here at metrojacksonville:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7522.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7522.0.html)

Sir:

With all due respect, calling me names and claiming "tinfoil hat" arguments is not debate.  Claiming my arguments are "nonsensical" is not debate.  I would ask that you keep your arguments limited to factual debate, and I will as well.

My personal details do not matter in a forum such as this, and neither do yours.  I apologize for referring to yours, and I will point out that I only did so in response to your referring to education.  Here, there is no way to verify the training, experience, or competence of any individual in this format, therefore it is senseless to discuss it.

I had a few problems with your arguments:

1.  You claimed this qualified as a Terry stop.  It is not.  This is a stop based on probable cause.  A pedestrian stop based on what the Officer observed.

2.  You questioned whether the Officers had the authority to issue a citation while working in an off duty capacity.  They do.  That was, and is currently the policy of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and conforms with State law.

3.  You claimed that the basis of the stop was "bogus", yet (correct me if I am wrong) you admit that you don't know exactly where the stop occurred.  Yet, in Post # 87, you make the statement " There were no sidewalks there".  In fact, the exact location was identified during the JSO hearing which (correct me if I am wrong) you did not attend.

4.  You claim in Post #94 that the SAO investigation of this incident, as well as the policy review of the JSO RTR Board are in your words "a joke".   You also claim that the JSO Board "routinely labels police-involved deaths "self-inflicted" to avoid paying civil damages."   Do you have any evidence to support such claims?  Could you tell me when the JSO Board labeled a death "self-inflicted"?   This is why I explained the purpose of the Board, which based on your statements you did not seem to be aware of.  You also stated in the same post "JSO's "board" has literally, in the entirety of its existence, never determined a single time that a shooting wasn't justified. "   That is factually not true, many Officers have been disciplined based on the recommendations of the board and just recently an Officer was dismissed for an improper shooting.

5.  In Post #99 you stated "SAO could do their thing separately if they wanted. They're the SAO, they have the right to investigate and prosecute crimes within their circuit. You can't really get rid of that, it's technically their constitutional job description. But the JSO "board" could definitely go, it's completely non-objective and represents a total waste of taxpayer money."    

Based on your statement, it appeared to me that you were under the impression that the SAO investigation was not independent.  It is.  That is why I explained it again.  You are right in that the SAO is the agency that has the jurisdiction and the responsibility to investigate Police involved shootings.  I also understand that you believe that the SAO is "biased" to side with the JSO.  I would simply point out that you provide no evidence for such an accusation.  As for you statement about the JSO Board,  I interpreted that as a misunderstanding of what the board does.  It doesn't cost the taxpayers anything as all of the participants are either JSO employees or unpaid witnesses.  It is an in house review of actions, training, and policy.  To not review actions resulting in death and injuries as well as training and policies would be inexcusable incompetence.  Why would you claim otherwise?

6.  In Post #110 you claim again that the stop was unjustified.  You stated "People don't put up memorials to felons who go down in a gun battle against the righteous arm of the law. The neighborhood clearly knows what it saw, and you wouldn't see such an outpouring of grief if this guy had really tried to take out two cops and they lawfully returned fire in self-defense."

I would point out that basing your opinion on whether or not a memorial is there is not a valid method of determining responsibility.  As for what the neighborhood saw, I would again refer you to the JSO hearing where the testimony of ALL of the witnesses was heard or read.  But, you weren't there, were you?

In the same post you stated "But I'd just love for someone to explain to me how shooting someone in the back 9 times as they're already trying to retreat could possibly have been "self-defense"."   I would refer you to the work of the Force Science Institute on Police involved shootings.  And Police Officers also act in defense of others.  The testimony of the two Officers indicated their concern for the safety of others and in particular one person who was also a witness.  But you have not listened to their testimony or even read the Officers statements, have you?

7.  Later in the thread, StephenDare! misread one of my post and made incorrect statements about the SAO and JSO Board.  This was after you had posted ""Nobody is confused about the difference between JSO and the SAO, except apparently you. The issue isn't some 3rd grade comprehension issue, it's a political one in that the SAO isn't truly independent when it comes to investigating police misconduct. "

While gently correcting StephenDare! (who removed his post, see my reply#133), I took the opportunity to gig you a bit about that statement.  It was meant in fun and although factually correct, was not intended to make fun of you.


It appears that the Battles family has in fact filed a civil suit.  I am not sure of the basis of the suit, are you?  I have pointed out that accusations of violations of civil rights by local law enforcement should be forwarded to the FBI, who is the responsible federal agency.  Do you disagree that this is the proper procedure for filing criminal claims of this type?

I am aware that civil action is available under Section 1983 as well, can you point out where I have claimed otherwise?

As for the SAO investigation, my statement was quite clear, from my Post#140:

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

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

If you think the SAO investigation is not complete, then I would ask you to show why you believe so.  All of the media was pretty clear in that the SAO investigation found that the two Officers acted within the law.  If you believe that I made some other kind of characterization of the SAO investigation, I would ask you to provide some evidence of that beyond yours and StephenDare!'s claims.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, Strider,  I understand your feelings.  Police Officer's, contrary to what you might read here, are not itching to hurt or kill anyone.  No one had closer or more contact with youth out on the street than the beat Officer.  Police Officers are people just like you.  They see the waste of lives and the results of poor decisions and poor parenting every day.  They see these same six foot tall two hundred fifty pound men crying in distress after they pull away from their friends.  No one knows better than the beat cop that the poor decisions of a youth who is succumbing to peer pressure or the need to be "tough" may lead that Officer to have to use force, even deadly force to protect himself or another.  Officers don't enjoy this, but it is a necessary part of the job.   For twenty years now we have extolled "community policing" and the "broken windows" theory.  We demand that Officers get out of their cars and engage the public.  The most common complaint in many neighborhoods is the "young people who run the streets selling drugs and carrying guns".   These two Officers, like all Patrol Officers in Jacksonville, are doing what we have asked them to do.  Officers make these kinds of stops hundreds of times every day.  Almost every time without incident.  Often making an arrest that may just save the life of a future victim.  Yet when they find exactly what we want them to find, and that contact results in confrontation and injury or death, we excoriate them  I wonder if anyone who posted in the last eleven pages even bothered to read what the Officers had to say.  I would bet none.  How many attended the RTR hearing?  None.  Those two young Officers are fine young men.  Both served in the Marine Corps with honor.  They are both college educated, mature men who have conducted their lives the way we all would want our children to conduct theirs.  They work in neighborhoods that most of Jax don't want to go into and they work with individuals who truly need their help.  They are asked to risk their lives to challenge those that would hurt the public.  They are asked to meet force with force, and to live with the consequences whether that be the criticism and second guessing of internet posters and even death.  Earlier in this thread ChrisWUFGator said "Cops know the dangers inherent in their jobs when they apply for them, and no doubt know the dangers inherent in their jobs each week as they deposit their relatively hefty paychecks. I am utterly sick of the public reaction in these type of situations, where we're essentially creating a whole new class of citizen with more rights and protections (cops) simply because they perform a task they knew to be dangerous when they applied for it."   Every citizen should find that statement shocking and offensive.  To just expect Officers to accept danger without protecting themselves is just an ignorant stance.  This person has NO understanding of what the law enforcement occupation entails.

Of course the death of any individual is a tragedy.  It is a tragedy that so many of our young people fall into this kind of life.  No one sees the waste, the loss of potential, and the pain more than the beat cop.  Officers are there when wives are beaten, children are abused or abandoned, friends stabbed or shot, when babies are lost..sometimes forever.  Officers are the ones who hug that Mother to hold her up as she grieves, who give CPR to the teen who wrecked a car, who..sometimes...have to use force that will injure or even kill when someones actions endanger others.

Quote from: stephendare on June 19, 2010, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: Springfielder on June 19, 2010, 01:02:52 PM
I tried to find where it was reported the officer(s) were cleared....this is what I found

QuoteA State Attorney's Office review of the shooting found it was justified. The review board found that the officers didn't violate any departmental policies or procedures and don't face discipline or retraining.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi)

This is from right here at metrojacksonville:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7522.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7522.0.html)

so NotNow was completely incorrect in saying that the SAO board did not make the statement that I quoted?

Well thats odd.  I wonder why he would repeatedly make the claim that this statement was not from the SAO?

sounds uninformed for someone who is making a case out of everyone else not knowing what they are talking about.

StephenDare!,

There is no such thing as a "SAO board".    What quote of mine are you referencing?  Post # please.

I'll ask again, what quote of mine are you referencing?  Please give me the quote and Post #.

Quote from: stephendare on June 19, 2010, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: Springfielder on June 19, 2010, 01:02:52 PM
I tried to find where it was reported the officer(s) were cleared....this is what I found

QuoteA State Attorney's Office review of the shooting found it was justified. The review board found that the officers didn't violate any departmental policies or procedures and don't face discipline or retraining.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2010-02-09/story/jacksonville_police_officers_acted_properly_in_fatal_shooting_revi)

This is from right here at metrojacksonville:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7522.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7522.0.html)

so NotNow was completely incorrect in saying that the SAO board did not make the statement that I quoted?

Well thats odd.  I wonder why he would repeatedly make the claim that this statement was not from the SAO?

sounds uninformed for someone who is making a case out of everyone else not knowing what they are talking about.

I am asking you what you are refering to.  There is no such thing as an "SAO Board".  What am I "uninformed" about?

There are many fine and even very liberal LEOs in this city.  I have the privilege of knowing many of them and consider them friends and protectors.

Good for you.  What does "liberal" have to do with anything?

I do not think its fair that you come on these boards and leave the impression that your point of view is the official police point of view.  You validly represent a percentage of the american public's point of view, that is true.

But whenever there is a post that disagrees with your political opinions, you then pretend that the opinion is an assault on police work and Law Enforcement Officers throughout the Sheriff's department.

I have not mentioned my profession on this thread.  Only you have, and after I specifically asked you not to.  You have chosed not only to reveal personal information about me, but to repost old threads and start a zombie thread in Riverside for spite.  Now you want to claim that I am using my profession? 

This is not true, and its not a very fair way to conduct a debate.

LOL

I am not sure what you are talking about when you say 'post everything that has ever been posted'. 

I mean just that.  There is a lot of information that has been posted about you.  You yourself have made post in other threads that you would probably not like posted here.   But you feel free to do so because you have no sense of honor.  Just as long as you "appear" to be the stud on this forum your OK with whatever it takes to do so.

I don't know if you realize it, but its um...already posted.

OK, I've got it.  I will feel free to do so.

And I really don't know why you feel the need to attack me.  I think it is a tragedy that this boy was killed in front of his grandmother.

Who is attacking who?

I also think its disrespectful to the family members of Kiko who read this forum to come onto the thread and talk about how he deserved it, especially when there is divided opinion on the matter.

Im not sure what your beef is, but you keep posting and escalating the argument.

Do you disagree that Kikos death was a tragedy?

Do you think it is disrespectful to the dead and his surviving loved ones to disparage him after his death?

These are my only two points.  And if you dont disagree with me on these matters, then why are you posting so many defensive and increasingly semantic arguments?

Your attempts to color me as unfeeling are childish and laughable.  Your attempt to hide behind the Battles family when you can't back up what your accusations and baseless claims is disgusting.

Quote from: NotNow on June 19, 2010, 01:45:05 PM

1.  You claimed this qualified as a Terry stop.  It is not.  This is a stop based on probable cause.  A pedestrian stop based on what the Officer observed.

There's really no reason to go past #1 here, because we already disagree.

There was not a passable sidewalk in the area where this incident occurred, as you can see yourself from driving by or by looking at google maps (both of which I've done). This means that under the current state of Florida law, the victim could not possibly have been jaywalking, as the very first element in that statute is that a sidewalk must be provided. And substantive due process would require that it be passable. That pretty much eliminates the probable cause argument.

Moving on to the lower standard, reasonable suspicion, there was none. The two men were simply walking down the street, that's it. Even the officers themselves never alleged they were doing anything but walking down the street, which was perfectly legal. Barring a legitimate jaywalking observation, which is impossible given that a useable sidewalk doesn't exist there, this is the only other basis by which the officers may have stopped the two men. They had no such basis.

Really, if we can't even agree on #1, then I'm not sure what the point would be in doing a point-by-point rebuttal of your issues with my argument. It all really comes back to #1 anyway, I don't think they had a legitimate basis for the stop, and you think otherwise. Now that I know you're a cop, at least your statements make sense, since I now have an idea of your bias. But if we can't even agree as to whether the stop was proper, then we're never going to agree on the rest, since it all stems from that.

NOT NOW: No, I don’t think you understand how I feel.  Of course police men and women are just human. They are subject to the same good days and bad days, positive personality traits as well as negative ones and the same rules of law and common decency as the rest of us.  They just chose a profession that gives them certain additional powers and therefore additional responsibilities than the rest of us.

In my earlier post, I was not talking about all police, but these two patrolmen. What I believe, and it is only my belief, that day was about.  At no time did I say it was about hurting someone, but it was about doing something.  I don’t even believe there was any evil intent in their actions.  But the absence of malice does not make it all better. My post was also about how I believe the community they were patrolling at the time views them and their actions; not only on that particular day, but every other day as well. 

When a police sergeant gets up in front of a group of people at a public meeting and says if you look or dress one way, this particular law will be enforced as a “tool”, if you look another way, it won’t be enforced then there is an immediate problem and one can readily see that an entire community, a normal community made up of both the good and the bad, will view the police with suspicion as that is exactly how the police community is viewing all of them. 

Yes, we all want the “bad” off the streets.  We all drive by a hot area and see the dealing every single day.  We all wonder why the police stop young men for not walking on the sidewalk but can’t seem to see the dealer down the street.  I suspect; no, I know, there are no easy answers to this issue. 

As I said, the real shame here is that no one on either “side” learned anything from this tragedy of the loss of Kiko as proven by the posts from both “sides” of this issue.

Community policing and "quality of life enforcements" are more to blame here than individual officers.  It is the POLICY which is causing the problems, IMHO.

Broken Window Theory is a disaster.  For Jacksonville to follow it as policy, is to follow the blind.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6948.0.html

QuoteUnder Giuliani, Broken Windows started out as a good faith effort to reduce serious crime by going after petty crime. But over time it evolved into a branding mechanism, a means for relentlessly associating New York City's renaissance with Mayor Giuliani's face. Today, Broken Windows is among the most universally discredited theories in the social sciences. Study after study has concluded there is no causal link between the reduction in nuisance crimes, like turnstile jumping or aggressive panhandling, and the reduction in serious crimes, like robbery and murder. And this was easily inferable at the time. The reduction in New York City's crime rate was echoed nationally, in many cities that did not employ Quality of Life policing. In retrospect, the principal causes behind New York City's crime drop had nothing to do with Giuliani. They included: a receding of the '80s crack epidemic, a growth in the prison population thanks to the so-called Rockefeller drug laws, an increase in the numbers of police initiated by Giuliani's predecessor, and possibly, as the Freakonomics authors famously argued, the legalization of abortion a generation earlier. But, as the journalist Wayne Barrett says in Giuliani Time, "this mythology that Rudy Giuliani single-handedly supercopped, and conquered, crime in New York City" is now in the "bloodstream" of Americans.

http://www.slate.com/id/2141424/

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  And although we disagree on this incident, I do not totally disagree that the current theory of "community policing" is without its problems.

ChriswUFGator,

I won't bicker with you any further.  Your mind is made up.  You obviously believe that any investigation that has been done is dishonest.  You seem to refuse to acknowledge a single fact.  I can not understand that state of mind, but I am sure that you have your reasons.  Enjoy your weedend.

But it is all right to accuse the two Police Officers, who ARE honor roll students by any measure, of murder and perjury, even when the evidence supports the Officers?  Of course, none of that crap dishonors the suspect in question, does it?  Which is why I commented.  If you wanted to make this strictly a memorial thread, you might have left out those unsupported accusations.  And you could have just said that to the poster that commented. 

I wonder why most people hate lawyers. 

I won't mention all of the things that would bias your point of view.  Because that would be discussing personal information, which I, AND YOU, agreed not to do.