JSO Shoots Unarmed Fleeing Man in the Back

[Dog Walker]

In the Lambs episode two bullets passed through the suspect and sailed along about thirty feet.....to my office!!

Somebody forgot to change out their ammunition after practice.  Hydro Shocks and Black Talons don't penetrate like that.

[Springfielder]

I'm not weighing in one way or the other, however, the story did say that the officer saw what he presumed as something metallic in the guys waistband and that he shot when that person appeared to be reaching for it. That was his justification for using deadly force. Obviously, later, when he and the area was searched, there was no gun, but that does not alter what the officer presumed at the time he made the decision to discharge his weapon.

When situations such as this stem from multiple violations of the law and civil order, and when someone believes they see a weapon, that is often enough justification for the use of deadly force.

Thank you for the explanation, I honestly appreciate it. I have a general understanding of it, but am not well versed in this, I appreciate your taking the time to explain the standard. So it sounds like the officer did have justification initially, I guess my only question would be whether justification is something that can be extinguished if the weapon / presumed weapon is discarded? Or is it one of those things where once you have it you have it?

I would agree, that according to the article/reports of the officer saying he saw something metallic and the person appeared to be reaching for it, that would justify the use of deadly force.

Now if during the investigation it is found that there was no weapon, the outcome would rely upon statements of the officer involved and any and all witnesses...not to mention the chain of events that lead to the shooting. It's a rather detailed and in depth investigation, conducted by the state attorneys office...then of course, there will be the police review board to weigh in on policy/procedures. The shooting could still be deemed justified, if the evidence and statements show how the officer may have mistaken something as a weapon, along with the persons actions, that would have made the officer feel they had a weapon and were attempting to take hold of it to use. It could also be deemed excessive force used. Time will tell

[JaxNative68]

^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios.

No "what if's" involved in my analysis at all, unless you're arguing that 7 stray bullets flying through a residential neighborhood isn't a dangerous situation? Because that is an actual, real, dangerous situation that JSO created, while all of your "what if's" about the fleeing man are just "what if's." He certainly couldn't have created any more of a dangerous situation than JSO did, since he was unarmed.

driving 70 mph through a residential neighborhood (not to mention actually driving off the street and through a couple of yards) and not stopping at intersections is potentially more dangerous than several random bullet shot through a residential neighborhood.

either way both parties were wrong, but I’m amazed how most people take the side of the criminal over law enforcement.  the use of deadly force by the police may have been a little overboard, but how about potentially deadly force used by the assailant with his car on the residents of the neighborhood.  At least the police officers had a motive of stopping a criminal who had already used deadly force with his car against a police officer.

[north miami]

In the Lambs episode two bullets passed through the suspect and sailed along about thirty feet.....to my office!!

Somebody forgot to change out their ammunition after practice.  Hydro Shocks and Black Talons don't penetrate like that.

One mushroomed to about 50 caliber and barely penetrated the shingle.This one was retrieved by JSO.

[uptowngirl]

When officers are fired upon driving down the road, why should anyone expect them not to be overprepared to protect themselves? Where is the neighborhood outcry over this incident?

That incident has little relation to this one.

And just because someone shot at a cop on Monday doesn't give JSO the right to start mowing people down on Tuesday because it might happen again. They know it is a dangerous job when they sign up for it, this shouldn't come as a surprise to them, nor is it any excuse for subsequent uses of excessive force.

Agree. Just wondering why no one is screaming about the injustice of shooting at this cop driving down the street patrolling the neighborhood. I have not heard about any protest on the streets or anyone on this site going after the idiots that did this. No outrage that idiots are driving down our streets and shooting at cops or innocent mothers? Why reserve the moral outrage for the drug dealers only?

[JaxNative68]

^^ the best protest is to show how you are being discriminated against, not how you are discriminating against others.

[ChriswUfGator]

When officers are fired upon driving down the road, why should anyone expect them not to be overprepared to protect themselves? Where is the neighborhood outcry over this incident?

That incident has little relation to this one.

And just because someone shot at a cop on Monday doesn't give JSO the right to start mowing people down on Tuesday because it might happen again. They know it is a dangerous job when they sign up for it, this shouldn't come as a surprise to them, nor is it any excuse for subsequent uses of excessive force.

Agree. Just wondering why no one is screaming about the injustice of shooting at this cop driving down the street patrolling the neighborhood. I have not heard about any protest on the streets or anyone on this site going after the idiots that did this. No outrage that idiots are driving down our streets and shooting at cops or innocent mothers? Why reserve the moral outrage for the drug dealers only?

Simple.

The difference is that cops knew they are signing up for a dangerous job when they applied for it. I didn't sign up to have a hail of bullets flying through my window because someone decides to play Billy Badass and determined that not letting some guy disobey them and run off is more important than the safety of the neighborhood in which they decided to start an unnecessary firefight in.

Once the cops have the plate number and the suspect's physical description, and in this case his fingerprints as well, then just call it off already and issue a warrant. By continuing to escalate a high speed chase after that point, and by deciding to start shooting up a residential neighborhood, the cops are just placing everyone else's life in danger for no additional gain. It's irresponsible. At that point the guy's goose was already cooked, he was eventually going to get picked up no matter what. The article you posted is an example of a responsible decision. The original article that started this thread is a prime example of an irresponsible decision.

[ChriswUfGator]

^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios.

No "what if's" involved in my analysis at all, unless you're arguing that 7 stray bullets flying through a residential neighborhood isn't a dangerous situation? Because that is an actual, real, dangerous situation that JSO created, while all of your "what if's" about the fleeing man are just "what if's." He certainly couldn't have created any more of a dangerous situation than JSO did, since he was unarmed.

driving 70 mph through a residential neighborhood (not to mention actually driving off the street and through a couple of yards) and not stopping at intersections is potentially more dangerous than several random bullet shot through a residential neighborhood.

either way both parties were wrong, but I’m amazed how most people take the side of the criminal over law enforcement.  the use of deadly force by the police may have been a little overboard, but how about potentially deadly force used by the assailant with his car on the residents of the neighborhood.  At least the police officers had a motive of stopping a criminal who had already used deadly force with his car against a police officer.

That's ridiculous, for two reasons. Primarily, the cops should have broken off the high speed chase once it entered a residential neighborhood and they already had the guy's description and plate number. Secondly, if someone runs over my lawn so what, I'll get some new sod. Big deal. If stray bullets come flying through my window, I can't replace my life or my family's life. Tell me you really don't see the difference?

I'm not taking the criminal's side. He will get what he has coming to him, and as well he should. But I disagree with your implicit premise that I have to accept whatever action the cop decided to take just because he's a cop. What that officer did was irresponsible and placed other lives in danger for no purpose that couldn't have been accomplished another way. This wasn't some axe murderer of whom they were in hot pursuit, it was just some random idiot they tried to pull over for forgetting to turn his headlights on. Let the guy run off and pick him up later, this was not worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. This incident was grossly irresponsible.

[JC]

^^^^But yet had they let him go, and he killed somone innocent, we would have blamed JSO then too. How many time have you seen a fleeing criminal take some hostage? you guys are pathetic. I have not agreed with anything they have done over the past few years, but this is the one time I feel they didnt have a choice.

Your absurd "what if's" are irrelevant. JSO actually fired 7 stray live rounds into a residential neighborhood.

That's what actually (not hypothetically) happened. So what's your point? To prevent someone from maybe possibly shooting up a neighborhood (which was impossible since he was unarmed anyway), it's OK for JSO to preemptively shoot up the neighborhood? You must realize how absurd you sound.

Well the possiabilty of 7 stray bullets hitting someone is a "what if" scenerio also. I am right? So everything we are debating are "what if" scenerios.

No "what if's" involved in my analysis at all, unless you're arguing that 7 stray bullets flying through a residential neighborhood isn't a dangerous situation? Because that is an actual, real, dangerous situation that JSO created, while all of your "what if's" about the fleeing man are just "what if's." He certainly couldn't have created any more of a dangerous situation than JSO did, since he was unarmed.

driving 70 mph through a residential neighborhood (not to mention actually driving off the street and through a couple of yards) and not stopping at intersections is potentially more dangerous than several random bullet shot through a residential neighborhood.

either way both parties were wrong, but I’m amazed how most people take the side of the criminal over law enforcement.  the use of deadly force by the police may have been a little overboard, but how about potentially deadly force used by the assailant with his car on the residents of the neighborhood.  At least the police officers had a motive of stopping a criminal who had already used deadly force with his car against a police officer.

That's ridiculous, for two reasons. Primarily, the cops should have broken off the high speed chase once it entered a residential neighborhood and they already had the guy's description and plate number. Secondly, if someone runs over my lawn so what, I'll get some new sod. Big deal. If stray bullets come flying through my window, I can't replace my life or my family's life. Tell me you really don't see the difference?

I'm not taking the criminal's side. He will get what he has coming to him, and as well he should. But I disagree with your implicit premise that I have to accept whatever action the cop decided to take just because he's a cop. What that officer did was irresponsible and placed other lives in danger for no purpose that couldn't have been accomplished another way. This wasn't some axe murderer of whom they were in hot pursuit, it was just some random idiot they tried to pull over for forgetting to turn his headlights on. Let the guy run off and pick him up later, this was not worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. This incident was grossly irresponsible.

+28

The thing that I really find interesting and sad about these discussions is that so many individuals refuse to put themselves in the shoes of their fellow man and analyze how they may hypothetically react in whatever given situation.

All this shit is ok with them because it does not affect them. 

[JaxNative68]

Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

[uptowngirl]

While driving with your lights off is something most of us have done, it is also a key indicator in DUI and as such police will pull over these drivers to check and see if they are drunk. If you are not drunk normally the officer will just let you know your lights were off and send you on your way. I am glad they do this, drunk drivers kill people. I have been pulled over for forgetting to turn my lights on, I did not run from the cops, ram their police cars, or drive through peoples yards, or on the sidewalk at 70mph. I do not flipping care why the guy was running. He was not in immediate danger of his life, he has no excuse for his behavior period. Now lets see what the investigation shows in regards to the officers reaction.

[ChriswUfGator]

While driving with your lights off is something most of us have done, it is also a key indicator in DUI and as such police will pull over these drivers to check and see if they are drunk. If you are not drunk normally the officer will just let you know your lights were off and send you on your way. I am glad they do this, drunk drivers kill people. I have been pulled over for forgetting to turn my lights on, I did not run from the cops, ram their police cars, or drive through peoples yards, or on the sidewalk at 70mph. I do not flipping care why the guy was running. He was not in immediate danger of his life, he has no excuse for his behavior period. Now lets see what the investigation shows in regards to the officers reaction.

OK, but making a suspected DUI stop is still not worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. I'm sorry.

[ChriswUfGator]

Hey, I said they both were at fault and was pointing out the fact that an out of control car is just as deadly to other motorists and pedestrians as a few stray bullets.  Also, it could be more than replacing sod if you or one of your family members happen to in your yard or adjacent to the street walking Fido and gets struck by this car.  Folks need to stop thinking like Eddie Farrah and looking for false injustices and take responsibility for themselves and admit they are wrong when they have knowingly broken the law.  Chris, maybe you represent the drug dealer and sue the city and win him a few million dollars.  I'm sure you could find a constitutional right why he should be able to disobey the traffic laws, deal illegal drugs and flee the police; and you could get 40% of the settlement.

A vehicle is not the same thing as flying bullets, and even if you want to engage in "what if's" and place pedestrians on the street getting run over by a car, they at least have a chance to hear cars coming and have time to get out of the way, when the same isn't true with bullets. The car-as-deadly-weapon thing is mainly a legal fiction, in the real world a car is a car and flying bullets are flying bullets, and there is really very little question as to which is more dangerous.

Case in point; Why is there no FBI background check needed to get a driver's license like there is to get a weapons permit? Why is there no statutory waiting period to buy a car like there is to buy a gun? Gimme a break...they are not the same thing and you know it. JSO clearly created the larger danger to the public in this situation.

[Live_Oak]

The past 3 years is recent?

I certainly think looking at what occurred in the past 36 months qualifies as recent.

What's your definition of 'recent'? The past hour and a half? Only include shootings that happen on Tuesdays? Lol

I was assuming the past year.  But "recent" is a weasel word and really shouldn't be used since it means different things to different people.  I posted the stats for 08 and 09 to show that shootings like this have been decreasing.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I see an emphasis being made on just letting him go and trace the info (tag #, prints, physical description,etc.) rather than try to apprehend him.  Him, that just bolted when he saw blue lights, tore through a neighborhood, wrecked his car and fleed on foot - yeah, just get the info from the car, I'm sure that's enough to have him arrested tomorrow morning, a la CSI Jacksonville.  That officer had every right, imo, to pursue this guy because in real life, he can't just pull the patrol car over, write a report and hope that they get him later.  The moment that the guy took off when blue-lighted (assuming the cop was in a marked car) he commited a felony:

316.1935  Fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer; aggravated fleeing or eluding.--
(2)  Any person who willfully flees or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle, with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle, with siren and lights activated commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The cop also only has a split second to decide why the guy ran to begin with and the possibilities include:  drunk, possession of drugs, bad license, stolen vehicle, all of the above.  All of those offenses are jailable as is the felony he commited the moment he stomped on the gas pedal.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can just let him go and try to play catch up later with FPs and registrations.