Comments on the Shooting of Kiko Battles.

[ChriswUfGator]

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...

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[Springfielder]

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

A 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

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

[NotNow]

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.

[NotNow]

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

A 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

This is from right here at metrojacksonville:
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.

[NotNow]

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

[NotNow]

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

A 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

This is from right here at metrojacksonville:
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?

[NotNow]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[strider]

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.

[sheclown]

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

[sheclown]

Under 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/

[NotNow]

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.

[NotNow]

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.

[NotNow]

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.