JSO involved shooting in Springfield

[sheclown]

There's a crowd of about 50 gathered at the corner of 9th and Liberty.  Three blocks away are about ten patrol cars.



Everyone seems to be calm.  A man with a bullhorn is making a plea for justice.

[sheclown]

Here are the Florida guidelines for "hot pursuit":

http://archive.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb2046.html&Directory=session/2006/Senate/bills/billtext/html/

Section 1.  (1)(a)  A police department shall make

14  every reasonable effort to apprehend fleeing violators. Sworn

15  officers shall always consider the safety of the public when

16  responding to calls, pursuing violators, or conducting felony

17  stops. Officers shall always consider the dangers of a vehicle

18  pursuit in relation to the lives or property of innocent users

19  of the roadways, law enforcement employees, and the violator.

20  Officers deciding to give chase shall balance the need to stop

21  a suspect against the potential threat to everyone created by

22  the pursuit. It must be so important to apprehend the suspect

23  that officers are justified at placing an innocent third party

24  at risk of loss of life or property.

23         (c)  "Reasonable suspicion" means that an officer must

24  be able to articulate specific facts which, when taken in the

25  totality of the circumstances, reasonably indicate that the

26  suspect did commit or has attempted to commit a violent

27  forcible felony.
-------------------------------------------------

(i)  "Violent forcible felony" means any of the

4  following crimes:

5         1.  Murder.

6         2.  Manslaughter.

7         3.  Armed robbery.

8         4.  Armed sexual battery.

9         5.  Arson to a structure reasonably believed to be

10  occupied.

11         6.  Use of explosive devices to a structure reasonably

12  believed to be occupied.

13         7.  Kidnapping.

14         8.  Armed carjacking.

15         9.  Burglary armed with a firearm.

16         10.  Aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer

17  with a deadly weapon, including a firearm or edged weapon, but

18  excluding a motor vehicle.

19         11.  Aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer

20  resulting in serious injury. An officer's having to move from

21  the path of a fleeing vehicle does not constitute an

22  aggravated assault, attempted murder, attempted aggravated

23  battery, or attempted manslaughter for the purposes of this

24  policy.

25         (3)(a)  Officers may engage in a pursuit when they have

26  a reasonable suspicion that a fleeing suspect has committed or

27  has attempted to commit a violent forcible felony. Pursuits

28  for any other reason are prohibited.

[sheclown]

I just returned from talking to the protesters at 9th and Liberty.

We spoke about  neighborhood concerns regarding language and noise -- specifically bull horn use.  I believe they are sympathetic to these concerns but also committed to expressing their outrage and grief. 

I was told that several children had witnessed the shooting and they are concerned about the lasting trauma of that experience.

[CG7]

When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.

[ChriswUfGator]

When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.

The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.

This is really not that complicated...

[Adam White]

When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.

The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.

This is really not that complicated...

You'd think, but it appears to seriously elude some people.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.

The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.

This is really not that complicated...

You'd think, but it appears to seriously elude some people.

Should it be a consequence?  No.  But when you put yourself in harm's way, bad things can (and do) happen. 

From recent memory of a tragedy that only happened due to fleeing (First result): 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/activists-call-for-independent-investigation-of-pond-crash-that-killed/2275079

[Adam White]

When you are an adult that does bad things, you must be willing to suffer the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are bad. If you assault a police officer with a deadly weapon (his car going over 50 miles an hours hitting the officer head on...on purpose) I promise you you will suffer the consequences.

The problem isn't that. It's whether the consequence of running away while unarmed should be a death sentence without a trial.

This is really not that complicated...

You'd think, but it appears to seriously elude some people.

Should it be a consequence?  No.  But when you put yourself in harm's way, bad things can (and do) happen. 

From recent memory of a tragedy that only happened due to fleeing (First result): 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/activists-call-for-independent-investigation-of-pond-crash-that-killed/2275079

I have a friend who is constable with the Bedfordshire Police. He works in Luton, which is basically a shit hole. Anyway, one day he and another officer were in their car and suddenly a car in front of them took off when the driver noticed the cops. So they chased him. They guy started driving dangerously and hit a few cars and even drove up onto the pavement to escape. So they backed off and gave up the chase.

British cops kill people in error, too. But I think there is a massive difference in approach. Probably something to do with this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent

[CG7]

This case really is simple. If this person didn't try to kill a police officer, he would probably still be alive. The running isn't what got him shot. Trying to kill another human being got him shot.

[Adam White]

This case really is simple. If this person didn't try to kill a police officer, he would probably still be alive. The running isn't what got him shot. Trying to kill another human being got him shot.

You don't know that the suspect intentionally hit the police officer. You also don't know, if he did do it intentionally, that he did it with the intent to kill the police officer. And you don't know why the guy who shot him pulled the trigger.

So it's not so "simple". Or at least we don't yet know enough about it to make those sort of statements.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

This case really is simple. If this person didn't try to kill a police officer, he would probably still be alive. The running isn't what got him shot. Trying to kill another human being got him shot.

Sure.  Cut and dry.

As I've said multiple times, I can see both sides.  And if you read the list provided by Sheclown, you'll see that a vehicle isn't considered a deadly weapon when it's used in an attempt to run over a cop (I learned something today, thanks).  That, along with the fact that no where have I read that Bing had a weapon, doesn't lead me to believe that this is as simple as some would like it to be, and why I personally don't have a blanket opinion everytime I read about these types of things.

These 'facts' when coupled with the Bing's actions are why I'm hold him just as culpable.  Did he 'deserve' to die?  No; Did his actions and his lack of judgement play a huge role in contributing to the factors that led to his death?  In my mind, without a doubt.

[Adam White]

Did his actions and his lack of judgement play a huge role in contributing to the factors that led to his death?  In my mind, without a doubt.

I don't disagree with you there.

[sheclown]

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,

and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon". 

[sheclown]

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

    A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
    — Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

There is actually a "fleeing felons rule".

[Adam White]

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given,

and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

I'm not so good with legalese, but it seems like an officer may use deadly force if "a" and "b" are proven and if Vernell Bing Jr. is a "fleeing felon".

A or B. Both are not required. They appear to apply to case number 3 only. But to justify the use of any force, one of the conditions set out in 1 - 3 would have to be met. As far as "felon" is concerned, I'd need to see how that is defined for the purposes of the statute, though I assume it means people who have been convicted of felonies (and in that case applies to 2 and/or 3 above).

I would assume that the defence offered would be that the police officer reasonably believed that he had to defend the public (as the suspect was driving a car linked to a murder and fled when confronted - and possibly attempted to harm another officer with his car). He might also say he thought the suspect was reaching for a weapon. Which might be reasonable - but it's hard to say in the absence of any further information.

That's just my take.