Comments on the Shooting of Kiko Battles.

[Springfielder]

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.

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

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

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)

[Springfielder]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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...

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

Title 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

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

Title 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.

(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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.