JSO involved shooting in Springfield

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

This clip discusses several controversial issues --  one of which is the release of this video yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/v/kF9jeh_-7RA

This video has been out for a few weeks now.  It's not new.  The officer's firing isn't new.

I was under the impression that they've released the dash-cam of the accident or maybe from another car that had footage of the actual shooting.

[I-10east]

Do stupid things, get stupid results.  And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.

I agree.  I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:

• JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month.  Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
• In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle.  Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
• Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise.  Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.

Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot.  Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot.  It's that simple.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Bingo. I waited awhile to research the evidence; I have heard enough to know that the cop wasn't in the wrong and ultimately will be cleared of charges. This angel that people are trying to portray had continuing recent wrap sheet, and put people (the police, and a woman and baby) into danger.

This is another case of race baiting by the local media, and I know that Jax will not tolerate this unnecessary pernicious liberal-driven racial division like Baltimore, Ferguson etc. This is why it's good to have some conservatism within a city, or else it turns into a liberal hellhole. I did some really stupid stuff when I was younger, AND I knew the consequences of my actions.

[strider]

Do stupid things, get stupid results.  And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.

I agree.  I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:

• JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month.  Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
• In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle.  Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
• Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise.  Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.

Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot.  Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot.  It's that simple.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Bingo. I waited awhile to research the evidence; I have heard enough to know that the cop wasn't in the wrong and ultimately will be cleared of charges. This angel that people are trying to portray had continuing recent wrap sheet, and put people (the police, and a woman and baby) into danger.

This is another case of race baiting by the local media, and I know that Jax will not tolerate this unnecessary pernicious liberal-driven racial division like Baltimore, Ferguson etc. This is why it's good to have some conservatism within a city, or else it turns into a liberal hellhole. I did some really stupid stuff when I was younger, AND I knew the consequences of my actions.

It seems to me that most of the information released about the suspect wasn't exactly known until after he was shot and properly identified.  And while you are stating that the suspect put innocent by-standers in danger, so did JSO.  Imagine how the conversations over this incident would be if a patrol car had hit and killed a by-stander or one of the four rounds that missed the suspect had hit and killed a child.  Both were just as likely of an outcome as what finally did happen.  Absolving JSO of any responsibility is actually just as irresponsible as the suspect fleeing to begin with.

[AKIRA]

On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped.  There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.

[sheclown]

On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped.  There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.

Is there no other way to capture criminals other than chasing them through neighborhood streets? 

[Adam White]

On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped.  There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.

Sometimes that is true. I'd find the JSO's case a bit more compelling if they knew who they were chasing (assuming he was a threat to the public).

[AKIRA]

I asked Kemetric Empire if they had any comments on the Sheriff's speech. 



While Diallo Sekou had "no comment", other members stated that they are puzzled by the "transparency " comment -- like in -- its so transparent, it isn't even there.



James Muhammad of the New Black Panthers calls the head shot "intentional" and "an execution"

I also spoke with Dr. Levy president of the SCOC.

..your not going to report on their racist and absurd comments about jews, house negros (looong tirade), crackers, killing white people, white Jesus, gay Jesus, black supremacy, nonsensical Egyptian historical theories, etc....?   You seem to make a point of bring these guys into light, then why not tell their who story?  At some point, they should be ashamed of using this tragedy to promote their own particular wacky world view.

The people who actually live on the block (black and white) are ready for these guys to move on.

[AKIRA]

On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped.  There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.

Is there no other way to capture criminals other than chasing them through neighborhood streets? 

...should all violent felons get a free pass to escape and continue hurting innocent people as long as they flee down a street.  Maybe a PSA asking the criminals to stay off local roads and stick to the highways...

[sheclown]

Hot pursuits are highly risky police procedure.  A family member of mine was killed many years ago during a hot pursuit.  She innocently was driving to the bank in the middle of the day when she was hit by a police car during a hot pursuit. 

Sure, there may be times when it is absolutely necessary, but I sure would like to have an understanding of the Florida statute that dictates the circumstance and I'd like to know for certain that JSO's policies reflect the statute. 

Also, I'd like to know what other options are more appropriate when dealing with a residential neighborhood. 

[AKIRA]

On the issues of responsibilities and dangers: the balance between the two is about the level of danger in pursuing someone versus the level of danger someone poses if not stopped.  There is a moral imperative in vigilantly pursuing someone who has shown to be a danger to the community, such as an armed robber, since they will probably continue to be violent.

Is there no other way to capture criminals other than chasing them through neighborhood streets? 

...should all violent felons get a free pass to escape and continue hurting innocent people as long as they flee down a street.  Maybe a PSA asking the criminals to stay off local roads and stick to the highways...

Isn't that a cherry picked question AKIRA?  Would it be fair to ask 'should all kill happy cops be allowed to take random shots at citizens suspected of unknown hanky panky?

Cherry picked?  Far less so than quoting the Back Panthers and Kemetric Empire about their suspicion of the police/city and leaving out their own racist foolishness.  This sort of topic produces all kinds of exaggerated silliness without a responsibility to accuracy. 

Perhaps the question is staged a bit dramatically, but is not without reason, as the question does establish the very realistic parameters.  In this day, nobody wants to be in a car chase, but society can not let the worst run free to do as they will.

The standards of how to determine the need for a chase is balanced by considering the threat posed by suspect to the public versus the threat posed by the chase itself.  This is way it has been determined that JSO vehicle pursuits are for violent felonies, and not for non-violent felonies.  If someone wants to know the rules, simply go the police station and ask for a print out.  Easy to do.

[AKIRA]

Re-read if necessary.  I can't imagine being more clear as to my opinion about the hypocrisy involved.


A better question would be is how do you keep violent felons from driving into neighborhood were they are a threat to the populace.  The answer is you can not.  The pursued dictate the direction of the pursuit.

The next question is should you continue chasing violent felons into a neighborhood in a car chase.  The answer is yes if they have shown to be a greater threat to the neighborhood and pose a continued threat to the populace.

It would be preferable to catch a violent felon before he or she gets to a car, but it is not always possible, nor is it practical to simply let them drive away to create more havoc.

One could imagine Mr. Bing's willingness to harm the neighborhood for the sole purpose of escaping his day in court.  Considering the violent felonies he was suspected of, it would appear that he was a danger whether or not he was being chased or left to his own devices.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

...Considering the violent felonies he was suspected of, it would appear that he was a danger whether or not he was being chased or left to his own devices.

And I believe this is a key point.  Forget the rap-sheet that Bing actually had - it's irrelevant.  As Strider pointed out earlier, the identity of the driver and his corresponding 'rap-sheet' weren't known until he was laying on the street with a bullet hole in the side of his head. 

The vehicle that he was driving is what was linked to an earlier shooting of which we don't have much detail.  The fact that he ran after getting blue-lighted only caused more suspicion and leading the cops on a chase only added fuel to the fire.

Based on the details (unknown at this time) of what actually happened in the earlier shooting at the auto shop, the JSO could have been extreme cause to ensure that whomever was driving that vehicle should be off of the street.   These are the facts that will continue to come out of this case to allow for greater understanding.

[strider]

Re-read if necessary.  I can't imagine being more clear as to my opinion about the hypocrisy involved.


A better question would be is how do you keep violent felons from driving into neighborhood were they are a threat to the populace.  The answer is you can not.  The pursued dictate the direction of the pursuit.

The next question is should you continue chasing violent felons into a neighborhood in a car chase.  The answer is yes if they have shown to be a greater threat to the neighborhood and pose a continued threat to the populace.

It would be preferable to catch a violent felon before he or she gets to a car, but it is not always possible, nor is it practical to simply let them drive away to create more havoc.

One could imagine Mr. Bing's willingness to harm the neighborhood for the sole purpose of escaping his day in court.  Considering the violent felonies he was suspected of, it would appear that he was a danger whether or not he was being chased or left to his own devices.

The bottom line is that from JSO at this point, all the pursuing officers knew for sure was they were in pursuit of a stolen car. Yes, they suspected the car may have been at the scene of a shooting but I have only heard that it was "reported" to have been, meaning they did not know for sure?  Which in my mind says they did not have reason to believe he was an armed felon with a high risk of intentionally hurting others. In theory, by backing off the chase once it hit a high density urban neighborhood, the kid would have slowed himself as he also knew he was putting himself at risk and most likely tried to hide in an alley. Perhaps even ditching the car and leaving on foot.  After all, his ultimate goal was not to hurt by-standers, his only real goal was not getting arrested. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure what would have happened and the fact is, once a chase starts, it must be very hard for the officers to stop. Doesn't change the fact that perhaps they should have.

A number of years ago, a car was stolen and while we were talking to the officer and finalizing the report, it was spotted and a high speed chase began.  The chase, like this one, did not last long and actually officers managed to get far enough ahead of the suspect that they could and did throw tack strips out.  Which sent the speeding car careening out of control, left down a side street were it took out 150 feet of chain link fence before coming to a stop.  Over a stolen car that was older and well insured.  I noticed the officers we heard on the radio seemed to enjoy the chase and the result.  But of course, I always wondered what would have happened if someone had been standing along that fence.

We as citizens often get held to some high standard of being responsible for the possible consequences of our actions.  Should not JSO be held to the same standard if not a higher one? Have we been told where the four shoots that missed the suspect ended up? Should JSO be held responsible for the danger they put innocent by-standers in? All over what was nothing more than the pursuit of someone driving a stolen car.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Question for you Strider:

The collision between Bing and the officer was head-on.  Was there JSO directly behind Bing pursuing at a high rate of speed or were they already 'passively' tracking him because he was in a neighborhood.  Essentially throwing a net over the area and closing in?

Did Bing only accelerate the moment he saw the JSO turn in front of him on 9th St?

I don't know, but these are what I feel as valid questions.

[strider]

Question for you Strider:

The collision between Bing and the officer was head-on.  Was there JSO directly behind Bing pursuing at a high rate of speed or were they already 'passively' tracking him because he was in a neighborhood.  Essentially throwing a net over the area and closing in?

Did Bing only accelerate the moment he saw the JSO turn in front of him on 9th St?

I don't know, but these are what I feel as valid questions.

What we do know is that the officer was turning at 14 MPH, Bing was traveling at 53 MPH.  That means Bing's car travels 78 feet every second. If we assume officers were still in pursuit, Bings attention was out towards the rear as much as anything.  The fact they knew where he was also suggests there was at least one car pursuing him at that point. It is as likely that Bing did not have time to see and avoid as it is he simply decided not to brake.  Also, the pictures I have seen of the patrol car indicate a overlap collision where the cars are possibly beginning an attempt at missing each other.  Common in "head on " collisions (also a test scenario used to determine crash ratings).  Lots of possible scenarios as of yet and that fact does not lesson the responsibility of the JSO nor tell us the resting place of the four extra bullets. How close did they come to injuring an innocent by-stander?