JSO Shoots Unarmed Fleeing Man in the Back

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

You just demonstrated how little you read these threads you decide to post in, since I mentioned felony fleeing and eluding 3 pages ago. But thanks for regurgitating what I already wrote about, that was supremely helpful! Also, your analysis is flawed. If this happened in the woods or some deserted area, then that's one thing. This started as a traffic stop for the guy forgetting to turn his headlights on, neither that nor anything else on your little list was worth shooting up a residential neighborhood. This didn't happen in a vacant area, it happened in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

And I'm sorry that you consider a cop having to spend 10 minutes running a registration or taking fingerprints to be "CSI Jacksonville" and apparently feel that avoiding this labor is a valid reason to just shoot the guy. I consider it basic police work, as I suspect most people do.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

My definition of recent as being the past 36 months is hardly unreasonable. As far as a weasel's word, I guess if I were you I'd take that up with Webster's since they say it's appropriate. And by limiting your analysis to 2008 and 2009, which conveniently excludes the recent period during which we had more police shootings than all the other major cities in Florida combined, I must ask whether that brings back all the dead people from 2007?

I think it's clear that some great number of these shootings were probably brought about as much by JSO's policies as anything else, if the number drops like it has after you guys institute policy changes. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly happy to see the numbers decreasing, but the second point in there is that JSO's policies were obviously contributing to this problem to begin with. The economy has only continued to worsen, and our local population has grown, so connect the dots there.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

You just demonstrated how little you read these threads you decide to post in, since I mentioned felony fleeing and eluding 3 pages ago. But thanks for regurgitating what I already wrote about, that was supremely helpful!

Glad I could assist.

Also, your analysis is flawed. If this happened in the woods or some deserted area, then that's one thing. This started as a traffic stop for the guy forgetting to turn his headlights on, neither that nor anything else on your little list was worth shooting up a residential neighborhood.

I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

This didn't happen in a vacant area, it happened in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

So I guess that you learned that while reading, 'How to Lose the Cops for Dummies!'?  I guess the next time I get pulled over, I'll just hang a right into the nearest neighborhood and drive through a few lawns so the EVIL JSO officer will stop following me.

And I'm sorry that you consider a cop having to spend 10 minutes running a registration or taking fingerprints to be "CSI Jacksonville" and apparently feel that avoiding this labor is a valid reason to just shoot the guy. I consider it basic police work, as I suspect most people do.

Talk about flawed logic.....  So, in your opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that own cars have them registered in their names?  Also, in your  opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that have cars registered in their name would just pull over when blue-lighted?  Yeah, me too.  It's the one's that aren't so law abiding in the first place that flee the police  So, would it be too much to assume that the cop could assume that this guy was up to a little more than "forgetting to turn on his headlights" and would warrant a little more than letting him go?  I know in your perfect world, he would be scooped in a few days once they traced the car, followed leads, ran the possibly dozens of sets of prints found in the car (my wife and brother and friends (sometimes) drive my car) and spent hundreds of man-hours - justice would be served.  Sounds like a great plan. 

[ChriswUfGator]

You just demonstrated how little you read these threads you decide to post in, since I mentioned felony fleeing and eluding 3 pages ago. But thanks for regurgitating what I already wrote about, that was supremely helpful!

Glad I could assist.

Also, your analysis is flawed. If this happened in the woods or some deserted area, then that's one thing. This started as a traffic stop for the guy forgetting to turn his headlights on, neither that nor anything else on your little list was worth shooting up a residential neighborhood.

I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

This didn't happen in a vacant area, it happened in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

So I guess that you learned that while reading, 'How to Lose the Cops for Dummies!'?  I guess the next time I get pulled over, I'll just hang a right into the nearest neighborhood and drive through a few lawns so the EVIL JSO officer will stop following me.

And I'm sorry that you consider a cop having to spend 10 minutes running a registration or taking fingerprints to be "CSI Jacksonville" and apparently feel that avoiding this labor is a valid reason to just shoot the guy. I consider it basic police work, as I suspect most people do.

Talk about flawed logic.....  So, in your opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that own cars have them registered in their names?  Also, in your  opinion, do you believe that most law-abiding citizens that have cars registered in their name would just pull over when blue-lighted?  Yeah, me too.  It's the one's that aren't so law abiding in the first place that flee the police  So, would it be too much to assume that the cop could assume that this guy was up to a little more than "forgetting to turn on his headlights" and would warrant a little more than letting him go?  I know in your perfect world, he would be scooped in a few days once they traced the car, followed leads, ran the possibly dozens of sets of prints found in the car (my wife and brother and friends (sometimes) drive my car) and spent hundreds of man-hours - justice would be served.  Sounds like a great plan. 

So then you agree that JSO should have broken off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood?

Glad you agree with my "flawed logic" then. Thanks!

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

So then you agree that JSO should have broken off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood?

Glad you agree with my "flawed logic" then. Thanks!

so this.....

I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

means I agree with shooting up a neighborhood.

[ChriswUfGator]

So then you agree that JSO should have broken off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood?

Glad you agree with my "flawed logic" then. Thanks!

so this.....

I didn't mention the shooting because there's no point in debating that issue.  I'm debating your theory that there never should have been a chase to begin with.

means I agree with shooting up a neighborhood.

Nice stupid rhetoric.

Back in reality-land, my question was whether you believe JSO should have let the unarmed man run off rather than shooting up a residential neighborhood? So why don't you answer it?

[uptowngirl]

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.

There should be! And we havea family here in our neighborhood that lost their young son to an idiot like this driving all over yards and sidewalks...so NO at 70MPH you DON'T have enough time to get out of the way, unfortunately this young man who lost his life is proof of that.

[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.

There should be! And we havea family here in our neighborhood that lost their young son to an idiot like this driving all over yards and sidewalks...so NO at 70MPH you DON'T have enough time to get out of the way, unfortunately this young man who lost his life is proof of that.

You think there should be an FBI background check before someone is allowed to buy a car? Lol

Yes clearly that's the solution to this problem...

[NotNow]

Keep in mind that the person posting all of this criticism has NEVER been involved in any pursuit. He has NEVER even made a traffic stop.   He has NEVER arrested anyone.  He has NEVER had to make the life and death decision to shoot or not.  He has NEVER been involved in any shooting.  He has NEVER even lifted the infamous fingerprint that he so desires. 

Chris, you have the right to say whatever you want, no matter how irresponsible.  If I am wrong about any of the above, please correct me.  By the way, can you share with us any training you might have in police pursuits, police use of force, or any tactical training?  To be honest, based on your posts, you seem to be quite ignorant in these areas.  No offense meant.  It's just important to note the qualifications of the guy who is challenging law enforcement practices that are accepted throughout the nation.  You hate cops.  We get it.  But the blathering is just....tiresome.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

...You hate cops.  We get it.  But the blathering is just....tiresome.

He doesn't hate 'cops' per se, only the one's that actually try to apprehend criminals.  He'd rather them send deputies out to the house of the person whose name is tied to the registration or who's fingerprints were found in the car.  I don't think he has the capacity to understand how many of these 'incidents' occur when the bad guy is caught, with a cache of drugs, in a stolen car, after just getting out of jail -again, that the paper doesn't report.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'll have take your word on it, but I'll also have to keep the belief that there are written rules, and there are understood rules.   It may be written that the cops won't pursue into residential areas, but what sense does that actually make? 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

It also makes sense to apprehend the one's who run - they apparently know that they're doing more than forgetting to turn the lights on or forgetting to stop for a red light.  That's my only point, the one's that run from the lights are most likely the one's who need to be caught the most.

[ChriswUfGator]

Redneck westsider your comments are truly idiotic.

My point was that these high speed chases cause more danger than they're preventing, which is well established when you start reading the news stories of all the people killed by these things, many of whom had nothing to do with the incident and were just innocent bystanders. Apprehending some guy with weed in the car is not worth killing innocent civilians, and I don't know what you could say that would argue any differently.

I'm not saying cops shouldn't apprehend criminals, I'm simply saying that while doing so they have an obligation to ensure their own actions aren't creating more danger to the public than they're preventing. All your blathering is nonsensical, and that's not just my opinion it's JSO's as well since they instituted a policy barring high speed chases unless there is danger of an imminent homicide.

So since they agree with me, do you disagree with JSO's take on this too?

[NotNow]

Well are you disagreeing with the no high speed chases in residential neighborhoods?  Because that's the official JSO policy unless there is clear danger of homicide.

You seem to be mocking the official police rules on this.  Are you?

Read his posts.

All high speed chases are instigated by cops on 'routine' traffic stops such as running red lights and driving with no headlights on. 

The cops should just run the registration info and apprehend the guy at a later time.

At no time should JSO pursue a criminal into a neighborhood because of potential collateral damage.

etc.  etc.  etc.

He still wants me to answer for the shooting, which I clearly stated wasn't part of my discussion and still isn't.  Obviously, Chris, and why not lump you in with him since you seem to agree wholeheartedly with his take on the issue, live in some some sort of Pleasantville where everything is so black and white.  I prefer color.

What policy are you quoting?