Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
Stupid cops, doing stupid stuff is way worse.
(FL) Officer Killed At Football Game
- Thread starter K-Romulus
- Start date
- Status
Stupid cops, doing stupid stuff is way worse.
Here's a link to a GT thread, in which an Orlando police officer expresses a little "inside information."
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=438068
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=438068
Ryder
Member
Good thing it wasn't a citizen with a permit that shot this guy.
I wouldn't draw on someone for thowing beer on me. It would be hard to watch anyone else do that without taking action.
Best wishes to the surviving officer.
I wouldn't draw on someone for thowing beer on me. It would be hard to watch anyone else do that without taking action.
Best wishes to the surviving officer.
joab
Member
What I heard was that there was a fight and the "undercover cop" joined in.
What probably happened IMHO is that a campus cop tried to do enforcement off campus somehow thinking that he would get the same respect off campus that they get on campus.
When they didn't back down like they do at school he panicked.
the people he confronted could very well have been non students, and a UCF badge just don't impress drunk kids that can't be expelled like an OPD badge does
Alot of conjecture and conclusion jumping but I bet I'm at least 50% correct on this
What probably happened IMHO is that a campus cop tried to do enforcement off campus somehow thinking that he would get the same respect off campus that they get on campus.
When they didn't back down like they do at school he panicked.
the people he confronted could very well have been non students, and a UCF badge just don't impress drunk kids that can't be expelled like an OPD badge does
Alot of conjecture and conclusion jumping but I bet I'm at least 50% correct on this
Last edited:
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
That sounds a little odd for some reason.
sturmruger
Member
I found this on one of the Papers in Orlando. It has a lot more information.
Borachon
Member
What I'm about to write is speculative, and I admit that upfront, but here goes.
Maybe this is not the tradgedy that it seems. Several people have already pointed out the oddity of a plain clothes officer trying to function as crowd control. So here's my speculation. Suppose the officer who got shot was drinking. I seriously have to wonder if he wasn't. Perhaps he was there to go to the game and saw something going down that he didn't like. Maybe the officer over reacted to what he saw in the crowd. Maybe he's had a few to drink himself and he reacts poorly to the situation. If he was acting as an undercover agent, then I suppose he could have had a couple just to keep his "cover". Please feel free to tell me if you feel I could be wrong on this point.
Now...if he was drinking, or otherwise impaired, and he is discharging his weapon into the air, or into people in the crowd, then I think the officer who shot him was wholely justified in doing so. I'd like to wait and see what the toxicology report says on the officer who died.
On a purely American citizen's level, I'd also hope that police around the country began to think closely about what occured. IF...and I'm not saying that there is....but IF there is a habit developing among the police of our nation to shoot the first person they see who is holding a gun at a scene without first attempting to get the person to put down the weapon, then I'd say that a lot of innocent Americans who are just exercising their right to be armed are going to be killed. Also, I think that if such a habit is starting among the police then I think their fellow officers in plain clothes are going to be in greater danger as well. Maybe a course on how most of the States in the country are now legally authorizing their citizens to carry concealed would be appropriate for officers, and that shooting the person with the gun might not be the correct response in every situation. With all the various agencies out there that now have police powers or the right to carry arms...such as IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Customs, Military Police, CID, other army/navy/marine corps police forces or undercover agencies, Tribal Police, even security guards, bodyguards and security companies, and no doubt one hundred other agencies that I don't know about...then the odds that they are going to be either investigating each other, or else investigating the same criminal and step on each other's toes (and blow each other's heads off mistakenly), has got to be a real problem. I've often wondered what might happen if the SWAT team from a local town was raiding the same house on the same day that an undercover bust from the local ATF was doing so.
The ATF association comments are interesting to me. One of the articles says he was working undercover, and that he was working with the ATF. There is a belief developing among members of the gun owning public that the ATF is an agency gone wild. You certainly come away with that impression after seeing movies like "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" which was on HBO within the last couple of months. Is this perception a true one? I don't know. I hope not. However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the officer who was shot had been told that he was to be working under a completely different set of rules from a local or state agency. Rules that govern his actions while undercover, and while he is working for a Federal agency versus a state or local agency, may have been explained to him before he began operating. He may have been told that if he got into a problem on an undercover situation that he was ON HIS OWN. That local officers would not and could not help him because this would blow his cover to reveal to the locals who and what he was. He may have been under enormous stress before hand with this seemingly mundane undercover work. Who knows? Like I say, my opinion is speculative but I'm sure we're going to find out that the officer who died was somehow at fault in some way. Hopefully though, some good may come from it.
Maybe this is not the tradgedy that it seems. Several people have already pointed out the oddity of a plain clothes officer trying to function as crowd control. So here's my speculation. Suppose the officer who got shot was drinking. I seriously have to wonder if he wasn't. Perhaps he was there to go to the game and saw something going down that he didn't like. Maybe the officer over reacted to what he saw in the crowd. Maybe he's had a few to drink himself and he reacts poorly to the situation. If he was acting as an undercover agent, then I suppose he could have had a couple just to keep his "cover". Please feel free to tell me if you feel I could be wrong on this point.
Now...if he was drinking, or otherwise impaired, and he is discharging his weapon into the air, or into people in the crowd, then I think the officer who shot him was wholely justified in doing so. I'd like to wait and see what the toxicology report says on the officer who died.
On a purely American citizen's level, I'd also hope that police around the country began to think closely about what occured. IF...and I'm not saying that there is....but IF there is a habit developing among the police of our nation to shoot the first person they see who is holding a gun at a scene without first attempting to get the person to put down the weapon, then I'd say that a lot of innocent Americans who are just exercising their right to be armed are going to be killed. Also, I think that if such a habit is starting among the police then I think their fellow officers in plain clothes are going to be in greater danger as well. Maybe a course on how most of the States in the country are now legally authorizing their citizens to carry concealed would be appropriate for officers, and that shooting the person with the gun might not be the correct response in every situation. With all the various agencies out there that now have police powers or the right to carry arms...such as IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Customs, Military Police, CID, other army/navy/marine corps police forces or undercover agencies, Tribal Police, even security guards, bodyguards and security companies, and no doubt one hundred other agencies that I don't know about...then the odds that they are going to be either investigating each other, or else investigating the same criminal and step on each other's toes (and blow each other's heads off mistakenly), has got to be a real problem. I've often wondered what might happen if the SWAT team from a local town was raiding the same house on the same day that an undercover bust from the local ATF was doing so.
The ATF association comments are interesting to me. One of the articles says he was working undercover, and that he was working with the ATF. There is a belief developing among members of the gun owning public that the ATF is an agency gone wild. You certainly come away with that impression after seeing movies like "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" which was on HBO within the last couple of months. Is this perception a true one? I don't know. I hope not. However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the officer who was shot had been told that he was to be working under a completely different set of rules from a local or state agency. Rules that govern his actions while undercover, and while he is working for a Federal agency versus a state or local agency, may have been explained to him before he began operating. He may have been told that if he got into a problem on an undercover situation that he was ON HIS OWN. That local officers would not and could not help him because this would blow his cover to reveal to the locals who and what he was. He may have been under enormous stress before hand with this seemingly mundane undercover work. Who knows? Like I say, my opinion is speculative but I'm sure we're going to find out that the officer who died was somehow at fault in some way. Hopefully though, some good may come from it.
joab
Member
Wouldn't the uniforms be aware of an undercover working the area.
On NYPD Blue they have a "color of the day".
LEOs, Any truth to any of thatthat?
On NYPD Blue they have a "color of the day".
LEOs, Any truth to any of thatthat?
What a bunch of over imaginative yellow journalism like posts! Sorry but there is no other way to describe how I see some of the stuff written here. Now someonme says he thinks it possible (maybe even probable) that the cop who was shot may have been drinking and shooting wildly because he was intoxicated and, this was part of his cover. Do you have any clue as to what it takes to actually work under cover and, do you have any idea of the regulations you must follow to do so - or is it all just idle speculation? Anyone ever wonder why this cop was armed if he actually was working U/C?
Taurus 66
Member
Shooting at the asphalt could be worse. Discharging the weapon to break up a tail gate party was an unnecessary action. Infact, for him to remove the gun from its holster for any reason other than to counter the presence of a deadly threat, is too unnecessary.
You got that right.
joab
Member
I don't know if this is splitting frog hairs but Jenkins was a campus police officer not an officer of any municipality
No academy or formal training is necessary for the position
No academy or formal training is necessary for the position
El Rojo
Member
I am willing to bet you are 100% wrong on this one. Maybe Florida just gives out badges to any ole one, but in California, our University Police are sworn state officers who must go through an academy and have jurisdiction state wide. I would be willing to bet that Florida is no different.
I think the main mistake is going to be that the uniformed officers weren't notified and warned enough about the under cover officers working the area. It is very possible that the undercover officer felt his life was threatened. Why there wasn't a dead student to back up this possibility is puzzling. You can't blame the officer who sees this guy shooting people and stops him. Or can you? Shouldn't an officer ask the guy to freeze first because there is a chance the man shooting is performing an act of lawful defense? It is possible the reserve officer was too quick on the trigger. However, he did his job and stopped his target.
I think the best way to sum this whole thing up is straight Mr. Murphy. Everything that could have went wrong, did. There is no need to call anyone stupid or make broad generalizations or even make up facts that fit my perception. Sometimes bad things happen. The question is instead of assessing blame and calling people names, what can you learn instead?
joab
Member
Borachon
Member
is it all just idle speculation?
Yes. That's why the very first line of my post says:
Do I have any idea of the regulations?
No. That's why I wrote at the end of my first paragraph:
I have not the first clue how undercover operations work. Now...can I ask YOU a question?
Are the undercover techniques that you seem familiar with the SAME undercover techniques as another agency that you might not be familiar with? Or in other words...do local cops act the same way as state cops when they are undercover...and do ATF officers act the same way local or state cops do? Or do some agencies act differently? Maybe focus on things they consider important that another agency wouldn't? Maybe allow the officer to drink while undercover...if that will allow him to get closer to his suspects? To your knowledge, do things like that happen?
As to suggesting that he was PROBABLY drinking, I don't believe I said that. I postulated that he MIGHT have been drinking as a part of his cover...then got into a situation he wasn't expecting (or shouldn't have started in the first place) and possibly made poor decisions because he had been drinking. Maybe he saw an assualt taking place...more speculation on my part...and thought he needed to do something. Maybe he was trying to arrest someone he knew was an underage drinker and got attacked...more speculation. But maybe he was undercover...and drinking...and something else went down that he felt he needed to do something about.
The only reason I brought up the idea that he might have been impaired is because several other people have questioned why an officer in his right mind would use the "firing into the air technique", and expressed curiousity at why he might have done so. One possible reason that I thought of was that he WASN'T in his right mind because he was undercover...and I was asking if it was possible that he would drink as part of his undercover investigations. That's why I'd like to see a toxicology.
No yellow journalism intended.
Also...more speculation...I do think it makes a difference what TYPE of undercover work he was doing. Was he just strolling around the crowd looking for underage drinkers as a campus cop? Or was he working a case for six months concerning some fraternity that had made a hundred thousand dollar business out of selling booze to underage freshmen for the ATF?
joab
Member
I guess I should also make some of my comments clearer
He was a four year uniformed campus cop, how undercover could he have been at a schooll related function
Borachon
Member
You've done good...very clear opinion on your posts.
How undercover could he have been? That's kinda sorta what I'm wondering too. More like than not...probably.....almost certainly the case will show....I'm 99% sure.....he was in all likelihood just strolling the crowd looking for underage drinkers as a campus cop. Tough call to make when the legal drinkers are only one or two years older than the non-legal. Since this was at a "tail gate" spot, I also wonder how legal he was to even ASK. If you are off school property in my state, and want to drink, more power to you buddy. Don't get sloppy and falling down drunk and no one will bother you.
As to how far he COULD have been undercover...well.....maybe pretty far. It depends on how much is going on...and WHAT is going on. IF you suspected or had been informed by some CI that upper classmen had made a huge business out of buying alcohol for freshmen, sophomores or whoever and were doing a large volume business...like tens of thousands of dollars or more....then I could see the ATF getting potentially interested in something like that. Or if it was one of those moonshining cases where guys were selling it to freshmen and you needed to know who the source was. Something like that.
If THAT sort of thing was going on, then you'd NEED a cop who wasn't all that old...someone who might LOOK like a college age guy. So his having only 4 years experience would be a good thing...cause it would mean he was young enough to pass for one of your suspects. Again...correct me if anyone sees a flaw in this argument.
At a school related function, he might have been hanging out with some of the suspects he had under surveilence...and then saw something happen that demanded he do something and break his cover. Or someone saw him, recognized him as a cop, and started something.
But more likely what happened was he was strolling around the crowd, not working for the ATF, and confronted some yahoos who were drinking illegally, and one of them tried to wrestle with this plain clothes guy who was claiming to be a cop and it just got out of hand.
BluesBear
member
That would be the Florida State Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco NOT the BATF&E. P)lease don't confuse the two. The federal boys do NOT go around enforcing STATE alcohol laws.
And where were these agents t hat he was "working with"? why weren't they in the immediate vicinity and why weren't they covering his assets?
What we have here is a cascading cluster flop. One mistake leading to another until tragedy occurs.
There will be a LOT of policy changes in Orlando.
El Rojo
Member
Now, now Joab. Did you purposely not post the very last paragraph of the job listing that says this:
Also note I don't even live in Florida!
It is interesting you forgot to post the entire set of requirements. Then if you go look at the Florida Statutes, Chapter 943, you will find this.
Ah Joab, so they do have to receive some training and a 19 year old high school graduate cannot simply apply and be hired off the street as some people erroneously claimed. Imagine that.
Also note I don't even live in Florida!
Aguila Blanca
Member
I was waiting for the blissninny crew to check in, and here it is:
Well, I guess (in the absence of more information) I agree that the action appears to have been excessive. But I'm betting that this young lady's idea of how it could have been avoided is that she thinks the authorities should ignore underage drinking at football games. I'd further bet that if someone would suggest to her the alternate way it could have been avoided (people underage not drinking alcohol, and those of age not getting drunk and pelting a cop with beer bottles) that someone would be rewarded with a classic deer-in-headlights look. ("What? You mean like not break the law?")
joab
Member
My point was not that he had only 4 years experience it was that he had been a readily identifiable uniformed cop in a relatively small community who is now trying to blend in undercover among the very people that would be most likely to be able to ID him as a cop.
How could he not expect to be identified within the first five minutes, there's a reason the Duke Boys wear hoods
joab
Member
That's it Rojo I'm just a low life liar. Apparently that is easier for you to believe than that the paragraph appearing at the bottom of the screen after the description of the job, which I am not interested in so did not read, would have simply not gotten my attention
Interesting as in it's more in your nature to post a smart ass response concerning my character that is to simply point out an error
Ah Rojo, please point out where I have said or implied that a 19 year old could have the job.
Even though the statutes that you referenced says he can.
Why would you not include that in your list of minimum qualification are you trying to hide something?
Imagine that
Shooting straight up into the air.
Shooting straight up into the air would cause the bullet to expend its energy against air resistance and the force of gravity.
At some point it would become motionless and would fall back towards the ground accelerating with the force of gravitational acceleration.
It would eventually achieve terminal velocity – the speed at which wind resistance equals downward force. I am not sure what this speed is (maybe 300 feet per second), but I do not think it is deadly. In fact I do not think it would break your skin.
Shooting straight up into the air would cause the bullet to expend its energy against air resistance and the force of gravity.
At some point it would become motionless and would fall back towards the ground accelerating with the force of gravitational acceleration.
It would eventually achieve terminal velocity – the speed at which wind resistance equals downward force. I am not sure what this speed is (maybe 300 feet per second), but I do not think it is deadly. In fact I do not think it would break your skin.
joab
Member
Actually it can kill you, there many examples of this at Arab weddings and a few redneck parties
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked