JSO Shoots Unarmed Fleeing Man in the Back

[stephendare]

hmm... tamara's question:

How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?

Bridge Troll's answer:

Because he is not perfect.  In a life and death situation... no one is... even Stephen.  They practice often... and qualify to the standards set.

not sure what my level or lack of perfection has to do with Tamara's question, or if it answers it for her.

Does it Tamara?

Lol, unless you're the cop who was there that night Stephen. 

for the record, I am not a cop (although I approve of our social experiment with municipal policing), and I was not there that night.

Ive also never shot a man in the back for any reason (so far)

[NotNow]

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

[stephendare]

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

I would be very interested to hear about my alternative, not now.

Please tell us all about it.

btw, in your 'expert' opinion.  Does chasing after an unarmed guy, fleeing in the dark qualify as a 'gunfight'?

I may be completely mistaken, since I do not possess your superior intellectual powers and awesome prowess with guns and what not, but don't these 'gunfights' you speak of normally include guns on both sides?

Does this extend to matters of wildlife as well?

For example, when a hunter shoots a deer, can he legitimately claim to have 'won' the 'gunfight'?

Is it possible for the deer to win one of these gunfights occasionally?

Please enlighten us.  Your posts on the subject are clearly so well thought out!

[ChriswUfGator]

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You pass it off like it's rocket science, NotNow. I'm not sure anyone has to be expertly qualified to understand the danger to the public created by certain police activity, in this case sending live rounds flying through a residential neigborhood. It seems pretty basic frankly. If you can't shoot a guy (unarmed, in the back, and while he's running away, mind you) without shooting up a residential neighborhood, then maybe you ought to consider, uh, not doing it?

My issue with these debates has been, and always will be, public safety. You already had the guy's car, not like you couldn't figure out who he was, just let the idiot run off and then get a warrant and pick him up later. Again, not sure I have to be a rocket-scientist to come to that conclusion. I mean, what are you afraid he's gonna do in the time before you catch him, shoot up a neighborhood? lol

[Tamara-B]

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You don't have to apologize, my friend! I'm cool. You're right btw, I'm not an expert. Though I don't recall my saying I was one. So...maybe I should change my major from communications to gun-shooting so I can be an expert like "everyone else who seems to be" as you said. 

[NotNow]

I would be very interested to hear about my alternative, not now.

Please tell us all about it.

I have already heard it.  Why don't you give your own answers for a change.

btw, in your 'expert' opinion.  Does chasing after an unarmed guy, fleeing in the dark qualify as a 'gunfight'?

As has been stated ad nauseum, what matters both practically and as a matter of law is the perception of the (in this case) Officer.  If he/she reasonably feels a threat to life or great bodily injury by the actions of the suspect, then yes, it is still a gunfight.

I may be completely mistaken, since I do not possess your superior intellectual powers and awesome prowess with guns and what not, but don't these 'gunfights' you speak of normally include guns on both sides?

Well, I do possess education, training, and experience that you obviously do not....and no, gunfights do not 'always' require a gun on each side.  EVERY fight a police officer gets into involves a gun, with all of the attendant risks and required training.

Does this extend to matters of wildlife as well?

For example, when a hunter shoots a deer, can he legitimately claim to have 'won' the 'gunfight'?

Is it possible for the deer to win one of these gunfights occasionally?

The next time a deer commits a felony, leads me on a high speed pursuit and following foot chase and then performs an action that puts me in fear for my life, I'll let you know.   (This is the kind of silliness that makes it so obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about.)

Please enlighten us.  Your posts on the subject are clearly so well thought out!

Thanks.[

[stephendare]

I would be very interested to hear about my alternative, not now.

Please tell us all about it.

I have already heard it.  Why don't you give your own answers for a change.

btw, in your 'expert' opinion.  Does chasing after an unarmed guy, fleeing in the dark qualify as a 'gunfight'?

As has been stated ad nauseum, what matters both practically and as a matter of law is the perception of the (in this case) Officer.  If he/she reasonably feels a threat to life or great bodily injury by the actions of the suspect, then yes, it is still a gunfight.

I may be completely mistaken, since I do not possess your superior intellectual powers and awesome prowess with guns and what not, but don't these 'gunfights' you speak of normally include guns on both sides?

Well, I do possess education, training, and experience that you obviously do not....and no, gunfights do not 'always' require a gun on each side.  EVERY fight a police officer gets into involves a gun, with all of the attendant risks and required training.

Does this extend to matters of wildlife as well?

For example, when a hunter shoots a deer, can he legitimately claim to have 'won' the 'gunfight'?

Is it possible for the deer to win one of these gunfights occasionally?

The next time a deer commits a felony, leads me on a high speed pursuit and following foot chase and then performs an action that puts me in fear for my life, I'll let you know.   (This is the kind of silliness that makes it so obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about.)

Please enlighten us.  Your posts on the subject are clearly so well thought out!

Thanks.[

you are duly quoted for posterity.

[NotNow]

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municipal policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You pass it off like it's rocket science, NotNow. I'm not sure anyone has to be expertly qualified to understand the danger to the public created by certain police activity, in this case sending live rounds flying through a residential neighborhood. It seems pretty basic frankly. If you can't shoot a guy (unarmed, in the back, and while he's running away, mind you) without shooting up a residential neighborhood, then maybe you ought to consider, uh, not doing it?

My issue with these debates has been, and always will be, public safety. You already had the guy's car, not like you couldn't figure out who he was, just let the idiot run off and then get a warrant and pick him up later. Again, not sure I have to be a rocket-scientist to come to that conclusion. I mean, what are you afraid he's gonna do in the time before you catch him, shoot up a neighborhood? lol

Why do you believe that the car belonged to the suspect?  (It did not)
Why do you believe that "live rounds flew through a residential neighborhood?  (The background was not discussed in the news story)

There is no way that months of training (no, not rocket science...just basic police work like pursuits and use of force) or especially years of experience can be condensed into a paragraph or two on a forum such as this.  Can you explain a subject of tax law sufficiently here?  Suffice it to say that there is much more to a high speed pursuit than just having an Officer decide he/she wants to chase someone.  And while Officers are trained to consider background and public safety, the average police shooting is something like seven rounds inside of 5 yards in about one second.  Survival must come first, no matter how PC we want it to be. 

The Officer in this case was chasing a felon, who had already placed civilians in danger and assaulted Police Officers.  The Officer correctly gave chase to the unknown felon, and when he felt reasonably threatened by the actions of the suspect (in spite of repeated vocal warnings by the Officers), he defended himself.  Thank God we still have men and women like that protecting us.  I feel sorry for you that you seem unable to understand this.

[NotNow]

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You don't have to apologize, my friend! I'm cool. You're right btw, I'm not an expert. Though I don't recall my saying I was one. So...maybe I should change my major from communications to gun-shooting so I can be an expert like "everyone else who seems to be" as you said. 

It takes a little more than a change of major Tamara.  But I forgive you for your youthful ignorance.

[Tamara-B]

Well, it hasn't been a month, and as much as I've come to loath participating in Dare's circular "arguments", I will respond to Tamara....again.  It seems that you have missed my point.  Your question, "How the hell do you get to be a police officer with crappy shooting techniques?" is, as BT pointed out, a faulty question.  You have not defined "crappy shooting techniques".  In actual gunfights, misses are not uncommon.  What IS common is participants being shot in the back.  There are a number of reasons for this, which have been discussed previously in this forum.  If you have some reason for believing that "crappy shooting techniques" were used in this case, I would be interested in hearing your logic.  Everyone else here seems to be an expert, why not you as well? 

And by the way, I apologize for asking you about participating in a high speed pursuit.  I thought that since others here have a better insight into pursuit policy without any education, training, or experience, and you appear to feel comfortable criticizing a police shooting, then you could "visualize" the scenario.  I wonder if you approve of "our social experiment" of municiple policing?  Have you heard StephenDare!'s alternative?

You don't have to apologize, my friend! I'm cool. You're right btw, I'm not an expert. Though I don't recall my saying I was one. So...maybe I should change my major from communications to gun-shooting so I can be an expert like "everyone else who seems to be" as you said. 

It takes a little more than a change of major Tamara.  But I forgive you for your youthful ignorance.

I understand it hasn't anything to do with my major, that's why I was being sarcastic when I said it.

Your forgiveness means about as much to me as jury duty.

[Timkin]

[tayana42]

The fact is the Jacksonville Sheriff's officers have shot and often killed a large number of unarmed people over the years and I cannot remember any of them ever being convicted of using unnecessary violence. 
The frequency with which they shoot people, mostly people of color, is regrettable as is the lack of concern about unintended consequences such as shooting an innocent bystander and loss of community trust. 

[carpnter]

The fact is the Jacksonville Sheriff's officers have shot and often killed a large number of unarmed people over the years and I cannot remember any of them ever being convicted of using unnecessary violence. 
The frequency with which they shoot people, mostly people of color, is regrettable as is the lack of concern about unintended consequences such as shooting an innocent bystander and loss of community trust.

I am not trying to justify any police involved shooting, but people of color are involved in a disproportional percentage of crimes compared to their percentage of the general population.  It stands to reason that there would be a correlation when it comes to police shootings. 

[BackinJax05]

http://www.news4jax.com/news/26203064/detail.html

Police Officer Shoots At Man 8 Times
Police: Man Led Police On Chase, Refused To Stop

POSTED: Tuesday, December 21, 2010
UPDATED: 3:01 pm EST December 21, 2010

Police investigate an officer-involved shooting at the intersection of Lem Turner Road and Trout River Boulevard.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Jacksonville sheriff's officer shot at a man eight times overnight after he refused to pull over and then ran from police in Northwest Jacksonville, police said.

Police were called to Lem Turner Road and Trout River Boulevard early Tuesday morning because of the police-involved shooting that left the unidentified man hospitalized.

Jacksonville Sheriff''s Office Chief John Hartley said deputies tried to pull over a maroon Garnet Chevy Monte Carlo with license plate No. 449JLL for suspicious activity, but the vehicle fled, which started a chase into the Sherwood neighborhood.

The driver went through two homeowners' yards and then backed into a JSO cruiser, police said. The chase ended at the corner of Greenleaf Road and Doncaster Avenue, in the front yard of a home.

Video: Man Shot Running From Traffic Stop
The driver got out of the car and ran from officers. Officers yelled at him to stop, but he didn't, police said.

Officer A.J. Givens said he saw something metallic at the man's waistband as the man was reaching for that area, so police gave more commands for the man to stop. When he didn't stop, Givens fired eight times, Hartley said.

The man was shot in the lower back and was taken to Shands Jacksonville Medical Center in critical but stable condition. Police said they did not find a gun, but did find drugs on the man.

Police said the man was hit by the gunfire once. Hartley said the gun was fired numerous times because officers are trained to shoot until no longer threatened.

Givens, who has been with the Sheriff's Office for about four years, has been placed on paid administrative leave, as is standard procedure for any police-involved shooting.

Residents who were upset about the shooting were planning a protest in the Sherwood neighborhood Tuesday afternoon.

So the guy was unarmed and running away, that clearly calls for shooting him in the back 8 times?

NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY!

[RockStar]

This thread is so old, the guy fleeing has forgiven the shooter.