Comments on the Shooting of Kiko Battles.

[Springfielder]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[buckethead]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[buckethead]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[Burn to Shine]

(in white neighborhoods, this would be considered Libertarian)

So true. 

[Springfielder]

It 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.

[Springfielder]

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

[AlexS]

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.

[AlexS]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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?"

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[Springfielder]

It 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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.