Jacksonville, Fla Man killed by LEOs in yard.
- Thread starter Blackfork
- Start date
- Status
That's what I was thinking, too.
It was never about whether the cops could legally kill the guy, which is all joab seems to care about.
It was about whether they should ever have let things get to that point, since it was their situation to control, and they had ample opportunities.
pacodelahoya
Member
Ahh Biker, you are indeed a scholar and a gentleman.
pacodelahoya
Member
When police agencies do phsycological testing for new recruits, they are also testing to see how authoritive a person is in addition to identifying nutjobs(not a clinical term). Unfortunately, it is a fine line between takes charge and takes charge at any cost.
Please don't take that as bashing. I wouldn't want to do that job cuz I know I am the take charge at anycost kinda guy. That is why I don't get along with the police. Even though we are on the same side, we seem to continually bump heads.
Please don't take that as bashing. I wouldn't want to do that job cuz I know I am the take charge at anycost kinda guy. That is why I don't get along with the police. Even though we are on the same side, we seem to continually bump heads.
joab
Member
I can't post the link because I keep getting an error message that the server is down for the City of Jacksonville website
But in Florida, specifically Jacksonville, your property ends at the back of the side walk everything else is public property. You can use the emboldened text for your search.
And it should also be pointed out that it has also not been established if the cops were even actually as far as the sidewalk. The nephew has stated that Pops claimed dominion over the street also.
But in Florida, specifically Jacksonville, your property ends at the back of the side walk everything else is public property. You can use the emboldened text for your search.
And it should also be pointed out that it has also not been established if the cops were even actually as far as the sidewalk. The nephew has stated that Pops claimed dominion over the street also.
At this point we don't know if a similar exchange took place or not.
That typically idiotic statement comment does not merit a response
Read your own posts.
Most of the content concerns whether the shooting was justified, not whether it should have ever had to happen.
...oh, except for the dumbest thing I've seen on the whole thread, which was your humorous hallucination about the guy threatening the undercover cops, posing as drug dealers, because he didn't like cops in front of his house...
joab, the insight into the mentality of a long-time police officer that your posts have revealed, over time, has made me a lot less pro-cop. I'm certain I'm not alone. Something to think about.
pacodelahoya
Member
It would be reasonable to me to believe that if the homeowner came outside on three different occasions to confront the ucpolice, then he didn't know they were police. However, since he can't tell us we will never know. Also, I would believe that if said ucpolice had told him who they were, then that fact would have been reported by the press and or the police spokesperson.
But hey, that's just my opinion, and we know that everyone has them right?
But hey, that's just my opinion, and we know that everyone has them right?
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
good example
"joab, the insight into the mentality of a long-time police officer that your posts have revealed, over time, has made me a lot less pro-cop. I'm certain I'm not alone. Something to think about."
of being concise and aware of whats going on /sarcasm off
"joab, the insight into the mentality of a long-time police officer that your posts have revealed, over time, has made me a lot less pro-cop. I'm certain I'm not alone. Something to think about."
of being concise and aware of whats going on /sarcasm off
joab
Member
Your only intent in this whole discussion was to place blame on the cops and you were not above making things up as you went along, as usual. And you make fun of my what if? Which incidentally was presented as a what if, unlike your presentation of conclusions based on nonexistent facts
But again as usual all you need to draw your conclusion is the fact that a cop was involved and any statement made in the press must be considered true unless it came from a cop
And It is pretty much evident that he threatened the cops with a gun the question is why and when
joab
Member
Maybe I'm being obtuse but someone will have to explain that bit of wisdom to me
If that is suppose to imply that I am a long time LEO I guess I should warn you about the stupidity of assumption
I'm going to use common sense here, paco.
If the guy knew they were cops in front of his house, and he didn't like them there, he would have had an easy, safe alternative. Just find a big piece of paper or wood, get out a spraypaint can, and make a simple sign that said, "Look out! Undercover COPS!" and hung it in front of his house.
Maybe he never say Running Scared, though.
If the guy knew they were cops in front of his house, and he didn't like them there, he would have had an easy, safe alternative. Just find a big piece of paper or wood, get out a spraypaint can, and make a simple sign that said, "Look out! Undercover COPS!" and hung it in front of his house.
Maybe he never say Running Scared, though.
joab
Member
Yeah and I'm dumb
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
lets try to keep this discussion to the issues and not personally attack each other -- that is when this discussion gets shut down.
seeing trespassing isn't a forcible felony, i'd say this part of the law is irrelevant.
insiduous_calm wrote:
not really struggling with it. i've already acknowledged there is a difference between the two. what im saying is that the introduction of the deadly weapon into the situation played a major part of the escalation into a deadly force situation.
i think you can agree that you do not have to wait to get hit before you can defend yourself. you don't have to wait for the car to run you over, or wait to get hit by the golf club, etc, before you're legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.
if you haven't done the action-vs-reaction drill then maybe you're not understanding my point. a man with a gun in his hand will always have the advantage of time over someone who has to draw from concealment. that being said, if someone were brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot you, what would YOU do? common sense dictates, if you are carrying a gun for self-protection, that you get your gun out and be prepared to use it.
i think it's ludicrous that some people are saying the trespass (which hasn't been proven to be fact yet) escalated the situation more than a man who left and returned with a gun. it isn't reasonable under most people's standards to try to win an argument with a gun. plain and simple, that is what the man did.
there is no proof the officers were trespassing on his land. in order to make the argument that the officers were in the wrong, this has to be presumed. that means, in order for the logic pattern to progress, one has to assume the police were in this man's yard, because it hasn't been established as fact as of yet.
otherwise, the man had no legal action to use any force whatsoever to make them leave. the problem i see is that many people are quick to point the finger at the police because they see the cops shooting a citizen.
if the law allows that, it also allows someone to defend themselves against an armed aggressor making a threat of death or serious bodily injury, doesn't it? otherwise, if it doesn't, then how can it allow someone to display deadly force? the presumption is that if it allows the display of deadly force, then it also allows the use of deadly force to defend oneself against an armed subject making a death threat.
so if the law allows someone to defend themselves against an armed person making a threat of death or serious bodily injury, then how are the police wrong?
seeing trespassing isn't a forcible felony, i'd say this part of the law is irrelevant.
insiduous_calm wrote:
not really struggling with it. i've already acknowledged there is a difference between the two. what im saying is that the introduction of the deadly weapon into the situation played a major part of the escalation into a deadly force situation.
i think you can agree that you do not have to wait to get hit before you can defend yourself. you don't have to wait for the car to run you over, or wait to get hit by the golf club, etc, before you're legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.
if you haven't done the action-vs-reaction drill then maybe you're not understanding my point. a man with a gun in his hand will always have the advantage of time over someone who has to draw from concealment. that being said, if someone were brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot you, what would YOU do? common sense dictates, if you are carrying a gun for self-protection, that you get your gun out and be prepared to use it.
i think it's ludicrous that some people are saying the trespass (which hasn't been proven to be fact yet) escalated the situation more than a man who left and returned with a gun. it isn't reasonable under most people's standards to try to win an argument with a gun. plain and simple, that is what the man did.
there is no proof the officers were trespassing on his land. in order to make the argument that the officers were in the wrong, this has to be presumed. that means, in order for the logic pattern to progress, one has to assume the police were in this man's yard, because it hasn't been established as fact as of yet.
otherwise, the man had no legal action to use any force whatsoever to make them leave. the problem i see is that many people are quick to point the finger at the police because they see the cops shooting a citizen.
if the law allows that, it also allows someone to defend themselves against an armed aggressor making a threat of death or serious bodily injury, doesn't it? otherwise, if it doesn't, then how can it allow someone to display deadly force? the presumption is that if it allows the display of deadly force, then it also allows the use of deadly force to defend oneself against an armed subject making a death threat.
so if the law allows someone to defend themselves against an armed person making a threat of death or serious bodily injury, then how are the police wrong?
gc70
Member
gc70
Member
Threat?
The above statutory language does not contain the word "threat."
mr. singletary must not have been to bright to begin with. The UC police arressted 5 people there throughout the day... Mr. Singletary did not see any of this? its kinda a big deal when they bust someone while undercover. they do have to have a PATROL car haul them off to jail. so that means there must have been at least 5 patrol cars there hauling people off to jail (or one paddywagon!)
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
Spreadfire,
Like I said, we agree on more than you might think. The point of this is not that he chose the most appropriate course of action, I don't believe that he did, rather it's about whether he was acting within the law and conversely the dealers were not.
I believe we agree on this. There is no doubt that the owner appearing with a firearm escalated the situation. I do contend however, that the law explicitly allowed that escalation in order to give the homeowner leverage to terminate an unlawful tresspass. I also admit that it has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the dealers were in fact on his property, although I am leaning in that direction based upon what I have seen so far.
The question is not whether or not his returning with a gun was reasonable. Was it legal? If the dealers were on his property then yes, it was.
Generally that is correct. However in this situation, and practically all deadly force encounters, there is only one person acting within the law, possibly noone. Florida, like my home state of Kansas, has codified a concrete set of rules regarding when you can legally use force and deadly force to defend yourself. In both Florida and Kansas you must be legally present where you are before you are legally able to use force or deadly force to defend yourself without first attempting to retreat.
If for instance, you break into a jobsite and set up a meth lab and a rival dealer comes to rob you at gunpoint, you do not have the right to stand your ground and meet force with force. You must retreat if that is an available option before you can defend yourself because you have no legal right to be where you are.
In this particular case we have a couple guys dealing drugs that had been repeatedly told to cease and vacate the property. They were, presumably, on the property when the owner returned with a gun to effect a forcible eviction from the property. Something that is explicitly allowed by law. If they were in fact on his property then they were not legally present where they were, and while their right to defend themselves was not non-existent, it was severely limited under the law because of that. Legally they were obligated to retreat.
There is no evidence that a retreat occurred. Instead they took cover and further escalated the situation by drawing their own firearms. Who shot first after that is also debateable, but in any case, unless the dealers had made an attempt to retreat then they had no right to use deadly force. Their escalation to arms, on the other hand, did in fact give the homeowner the legal justification to use deadly force. He was legally within his rights to shoot them at that point and the only thing that they could do legally was retreat.
This is why the defining question is were they in fact on his property at the moment he appeared with the gun? If so then they are legally responsible for all that occurred. If not then the dealers were not legally responsible for what happened. They were however, morally responsible in either case.
I.C.
Like I said, we agree on more than you might think. The point of this is not that he chose the most appropriate course of action, I don't believe that he did, rather it's about whether he was acting within the law and conversely the dealers were not.
I believe we agree on this. There is no doubt that the owner appearing with a firearm escalated the situation. I do contend however, that the law explicitly allowed that escalation in order to give the homeowner leverage to terminate an unlawful tresspass. I also admit that it has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the dealers were in fact on his property, although I am leaning in that direction based upon what I have seen so far.
The question is not whether or not his returning with a gun was reasonable. Was it legal? If the dealers were on his property then yes, it was.
Generally that is correct. However in this situation, and practically all deadly force encounters, there is only one person acting within the law, possibly noone. Florida, like my home state of Kansas, has codified a concrete set of rules regarding when you can legally use force and deadly force to defend yourself. In both Florida and Kansas you must be legally present where you are before you are legally able to use force or deadly force to defend yourself without first attempting to retreat.
If for instance, you break into a jobsite and set up a meth lab and a rival dealer comes to rob you at gunpoint, you do not have the right to stand your ground and meet force with force. You must retreat if that is an available option before you can defend yourself because you have no legal right to be where you are.
In this particular case we have a couple guys dealing drugs that had been repeatedly told to cease and vacate the property. They were, presumably, on the property when the owner returned with a gun to effect a forcible eviction from the property. Something that is explicitly allowed by law. If they were in fact on his property then they were not legally present where they were, and while their right to defend themselves was not non-existent, it was severely limited under the law because of that. Legally they were obligated to retreat.
There is no evidence that a retreat occurred. Instead they took cover and further escalated the situation by drawing their own firearms. Who shot first after that is also debateable, but in any case, unless the dealers had made an attempt to retreat then they had no right to use deadly force. Their escalation to arms, on the other hand, did in fact give the homeowner the legal justification to use deadly force. He was legally within his rights to shoot them at that point and the only thing that they could do legally was retreat.
This is why the defining question is were they in fact on his property at the moment he appeared with the gun? If so then they are legally responsible for all that occurred. If not then the dealers were not legally responsible for what happened. They were however, morally responsible in either case.
I.C.
gc70
Member
The discussion of fine legal distinctions is interesting and educational. Without all of the exact facts of the incident, which are woefully lacking, determining who was legally right or wrong is problematic.
Regardless of technical legal issues, all parties to the incident had multiple chances to back down, but stubbornly forged ahead to a dismal ending.
Intune
Member
joab-
Yet you continue? Did the cops do everything right? Did they do anything wrong? By the “book?” Would you or any rational person have done the same to DEescalate the situation? I ask you now, in forethought, is this how YOU would have handled this situation, from the UC perspective? This answer, should it be forthcoming, will speak volumes as to your perception of this incident.
joab-
Where the heck did you read that they I.D.’d themselves as police officers? Cite please. This should be interesting. You're bored? I'm quite interested as to why this man was killed. Cite the "they IDed themselves this time..."
Yet you continue? Did the cops do everything right? Did they do anything wrong? By the “book?” Would you or any rational person have done the same to DEescalate the situation? I ask you now, in forethought, is this how YOU would have handled this situation, from the UC perspective? This answer, should it be forthcoming, will speak volumes as to your perception of this incident.
joab-
Where the heck did you read that they I.D.’d themselves as police officers? Cite please. This should be interesting. You're bored? I'm quite interested as to why this man was killed. Cite the "they IDed themselves this time..."
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
intune
"Where the heck did you read that they I.D.’d themselves as police officers? Cite please. This should be interesting. You're bored? I'm quite interested as to why this man was killed. Cite the "they IDed themselves this time"
try here
http://www.news4jax.com/news/10860940/detail.html
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A man died late Saturday after what police described as an exchange of gunfire with two undercover narcotics officers just off Philips Highway in the South Metro area.
According to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, the detectives had been working undercover for about three hours in the 2300 block of Westmont Street when a man approached them with a gun just before 6 p.m. The officers said they identified themselves as police and ordered the suspect to put down the gun.
Witnesses said that the man refused to drop his gun and gunshots were exchanged. The man was shot several times.
"The man came out three times and was like, 'Why are you not moving out of my yard,'" a resident told Channel 4's Jennifer Bauer. "So after the third time that dude came out of the house, he came with a .357 and started shooting at the individuals, which were the undercover police. They started shooting back at him."
Police said he died later at Shands-Jacksonville Medical Center. The name of the man was not released Saturday night.
Neighbors told Channel 4 that the victim was an elderly man who was very protective of his property.
"You don't expect somebody to come pointing a gun at you, and once they do that, the officers will tell them to drop the gun," JSO Chief Dwain Senterfitt said. "We're still investigating what statements were made, but obviously, at that point, the officers' lives were in danger."
The two officers took cover behind a tree -- which took at least one bullet -- and were not injured.
The detectives were placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure while a police-involved shooting is investigated.
This is the third fatal police-involved shooting in three weeks. Last Saturday evening, Douglas Woods was shot and killed by an undercover JSO narcotics officer who said Woods tried to rob him at the Sabal Palms Apartments on Emerson Street.
"If look at them, all three of these were people brandishing firearms, either shooting at or attempting to shoot at police, and police respond like they are trained to do," Senterfitt said.
we do have his nephew saying something different but then again nephew wasn't there
"Where the heck did you read that they I.D.’d themselves as police officers? Cite please. This should be interesting. You're bored? I'm quite interested as to why this man was killed. Cite the "they IDed themselves this time"
try here
http://www.news4jax.com/news/10860940/detail.html
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A man died late Saturday after what police described as an exchange of gunfire with two undercover narcotics officers just off Philips Highway in the South Metro area.
According to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, the detectives had been working undercover for about three hours in the 2300 block of Westmont Street when a man approached them with a gun just before 6 p.m. The officers said they identified themselves as police and ordered the suspect to put down the gun.
Witnesses said that the man refused to drop his gun and gunshots were exchanged. The man was shot several times.
"The man came out three times and was like, 'Why are you not moving out of my yard,'" a resident told Channel 4's Jennifer Bauer. "So after the third time that dude came out of the house, he came with a .357 and started shooting at the individuals, which were the undercover police. They started shooting back at him."
Police said he died later at Shands-Jacksonville Medical Center. The name of the man was not released Saturday night.
Neighbors told Channel 4 that the victim was an elderly man who was very protective of his property.
"You don't expect somebody to come pointing a gun at you, and once they do that, the officers will tell them to drop the gun," JSO Chief Dwain Senterfitt said. "We're still investigating what statements were made, but obviously, at that point, the officers' lives were in danger."
The two officers took cover behind a tree -- which took at least one bullet -- and were not injured.
The detectives were placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure while a police-involved shooting is investigated.
This is the third fatal police-involved shooting in three weeks. Last Saturday evening, Douglas Woods was shot and killed by an undercover JSO narcotics officer who said Woods tried to rob him at the Sabal Palms Apartments on Emerson Street.
"If look at them, all three of these were people brandishing firearms, either shooting at or attempting to shoot at police, and police respond like they are trained to do," Senterfitt said.
we do have his nephew saying something different but then again nephew wasn't there
I've been a lurker, and a low post count, but I live in Jacksonville. There's a lot more to this story.
What has people mad is that this man was actively pursued and shot after he disengaged. The original story never said the police identified themselves.
"Police said Singletary was shot at least once before going to his backyard, where police shot him again after ordering him to drop his weapon."
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012907/met_7636859.shtml
What the heck was this guy suppose to do? Call the police about drug activity in his yard and maybe 4 hours later someone might show up? He goes out to defend his property, and the people he thinks are drug dealers either don't identify themselves as police, or he may not have heard them, but they knew he wanted them to stop. So now the undercover see a man with a gun, who probably shot the tree to scare them off, and the shooting starts. The're not hurt, but this guy gets shot, goes to his back yard, and do the agents call for a uniformed officer to disarm the guy... No, they go shoot him some more.
More from the article:
Micheal Edwards, director of investigations and homeland security, said it was too early to tell if the plainclothes officers identified themselves as police before the shooting started.
Also, there are varying accounts of how it started. Witnesses and some police accounts indicate Singletary thought the officers were actual drug dealers and that he was trying to remove them from his property with the assistance of a .38 caliber handgun.
Some of Singletary's gunshots hit a tree in the yard, according to police, but none of the officers were hit.
What has people mad is that this man was actively pursued and shot after he disengaged. The original story never said the police identified themselves.
"Police said Singletary was shot at least once before going to his backyard, where police shot him again after ordering him to drop his weapon."
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012907/met_7636859.shtml
What the heck was this guy suppose to do? Call the police about drug activity in his yard and maybe 4 hours later someone might show up? He goes out to defend his property, and the people he thinks are drug dealers either don't identify themselves as police, or he may not have heard them, but they knew he wanted them to stop. So now the undercover see a man with a gun, who probably shot the tree to scare them off, and the shooting starts. The're not hurt, but this guy gets shot, goes to his back yard, and do the agents call for a uniformed officer to disarm the guy... No, they go shoot him some more.
More from the article:
Micheal Edwards, director of investigations and homeland security, said it was too early to tell if the plainclothes officers identified themselves as police before the shooting started.
Also, there are varying accounts of how it started. Witnesses and some police accounts indicate Singletary thought the officers were actual drug dealers and that he was trying to remove them from his property with the assistance of a .38 caliber handgun.
Some of Singletary's gunshots hit a tree in the yard, according to police, but none of the officers were hit.
- Status