Jacksonville, Fla Man killed by LEOs in yard.

[joab]

the reporter is sitting on a concrete block about 3-4' from the edge of the street (on the grass).this is allegedly where witness said the leo was sitting. there is no sidewalk.

Thanks
That does not mean that he was on private property
My community also has no sidewalks but the area where a sidewalk would be in a more civilized community is still public right of way, in case they ever decide to run sidewalks.
my fence had to be put where a normal communities sidewalk would end

3 to 4 feet would definitely be on right of way which would be considered public property in Florida

I can see why Pops thought of this as his property but property laws do not support his claim

oab, read the post above my last, you said it, as a matter of fact, I cut and pasted the quote

How does that even imply that I think any disagreement with me is a sign of immaturity.
You do understand that bigotry does not mean disagreement right?

I think you are either trying to get this thread locked or even me banned.

please don't play the victim, it's unbecoming. You made a false allegation and,or attempted to twist my comment I called you on it as I do with anyone

I stand by that statement and it in no way implies that I think if you disagree with me you are immature.
It does imply that if you do not have the mental capacity to judge someone on the facts of individual circumstances and not what color clothes they wear or ant other set of criteria for predetermining their character then you are displaying a level of immaturity
It does imply that if you are unable to see your little world as just that and not a template for the rest of the world then you are immature.

my wife has been mugged twice in recent months once by a Black guy and once by a Narain ( I believe that that is Indian) It does not cause me to assume that any Black or Indian guy is of low character.
My wife hates Cambodians because she lacks the maturity (in that case) to separate the evilness of the men that executed her family with their nationality.
I don't even totally disagree with her feelings but I do think that they are immature thought processes.
I have had many heated debates here, Trip20 comes immediately to mind. We violently disagreed whether a homeowner had the right to shoot a cop *I took the home owners side in that well defined and reported case for what it's worth) I found his well thought out arguments absurd but in no way immature.

When I am called a shill for the police or it is assumed that I am a LEO even though I have consistently argued this from the point of citizens rights and not cop authority I find that to be an immature diversionary tactic used by people who lack the resources to further their argument. I find that lack of maturity consistent with the typical bigot's mentality.

Let me know if I can clear any thing else up for you. All you have to do is ask a straight question and not attempt to twist my thoughts and words

 

[insidious_calm]

Spreadfire,

I believe your interpretation of florida law is incorrect. Your reliance on concealed carry statues proves this point. This is not a concealed carry incident. There is a specific florida statue governing the use of force to terminate an unlawful trespass. The law does not care about your feelings, it does not mention the application of a reasonable man standard, it simply says one can use force to terminate an unlawful trespass.

Whether they were police officers or not is moot and wholly irrelevant if they were trespassing. The law explicitly says he had the right to return with a firearm and effect an eviction. You can not simply ignore that because you wish to back the blue here.

I have said and continue to say that the mans actions were not prudent. Neither were those of the officers. There remains considerable questions about who shot first and whether the officers further escalated the situation between his appearance with the gun and the firing of the first shot. The officers had a legal duty to retreat if they were trespassing before they could use deadly force. By all accounts so far they advanced from wherever they were.

I understand they you and Joab are willing to believe the cops can do no wrong. The law in this case does not support those assertions though. The simple fact of the matter is that probably 60% of the people on this board would have confronted a couple of drug dealers on their property with gun in hand. The officers acted with extreme indifference to human life in their actions.

There are multiple points along this timeline at which both parties could have done things differently that would have drasticly changed the outcome. The most important thing to consider is that a man's home is his castle, his domain. The police in this case acted with extreme disrespect of the man by repeatedly ignoring commands to vacate his property.

Like it or not, if they were in fact on his property, they had no legal option but to retreat. If they were on his property and escalated by drawing their own firearms or shooting first then they are murderers. Police, dog catchers, meter maids, politicians, judges, they're all just people like me. They're not superheros who are above the law.

Frankly, I've gone out of my way to be open minded and even keeled here. I've already been called a cop basher and a bigot when clearly that's not true. This is done by people like Joab and you because you can't excuse the behavior of the officers so you attack those that complain about it or call for equal application of the law. For once will someone have the integrity to admit that cops are not above the law, they deserve no special treatment, pro or con, and if they screw up they deserve the same treatment, punishment, and attention that any other joe schmoe would get? And then actually mean and practice what they say? :banghead:

The officers actions were outragious IMO. Whether or not they were legal remains to be seen. That's not cop bashing, it's not disrespectful to cops. It's just an accurate honest observation of the situation. Now please carry on citizen bashing, I feel better now.



I.C.

 

[joab]

For once will someone have the integrity to admit that cops are not above the law, they deserve no special treatment, pro or con,

As soon as you show that the cops violated the law. The description of the video supplied clearly puts the officer off of Pops property, therefore Pops was not within his legal rights to try to evict them.
Will you now have the integrity to admit that your whole premise just went down the tubes?

And by the way please show me where I have said or implied that cops can do no wrong, anybody can chime in on that.
I can show you where I said that if someone could show me proof that the cops were trespassing I would change my tone or view
The video shows that the cops were not trespassing, will you now change your tone?
(If we believe the witnesses)

I have consistently discounted the fat that these were cops, have you?

 

[geronimotwo]

Ya, know Geronimo, the crux of the matter is that he asked those policemen twice to vacate thier persons from his property. They didn't.

also, they did not identify themselves as leo, until after guns were drawn (if then). has anyone established otherwise?

For once will someone have the integrity to admit that cops are not above the law, they deserve no special treatment, pro or con,

cops should not be above the law, and as trained "public servants" should be held to a higher standard. isn't this the way they are treated in most cases?

 

[joab]

Frankly, I've gone out of my way to be open minded and even keeled here

Not with unsupported statements such as this

I understand they you and Joab are willing to believe the cops can do no wrong

I've already been called a cop basher and a bigot when clearly that's not true.

If you came here with a predetermined guilt by association mentality against the cops then you are one of the bigots I was speaking of. If you are the one that called me a shill for the police or agreed with that statement then you have the immaturity that I was speaking of. if neither of those fit you then don't feel insulted. If either do fit you, well what can I say,

Everybody's statements are here to be reviewed by anyone else, I stand by pretty much all of mine.
If your's (collective)show that you came in with a predetermined agenda then accept whatever label they, and whatever posts you have made in other threads such as this, apply to you.

As I have said my views have always been that cops are just people entitled to the same right as everybody else many here claim that position but their words and attitudes do not support them

I challenge anybody here to find one post that even refers to the cops inherent right to be above the law or that these men were right simply by virtue of being cops or that their words were more reliable than a non cops

To my recollection I have made one post about them being cops and that was about why they would pursue the man into his yard and it was a valid statement of police procedure.
Every other post has been about the conclusions made based on no facts and any citizen's right to defend themselves and to use deadly force against a forcible felony under Florida law.

 

[TCB in TN]

IF the cop was trespassing and Pops chose to introduce deadly force or the imminent threat of deadly force then he was also committing a crime. The difference is that trespassing is a misdemeanor and aggravate battery is a forcible felony.

Once again Joab, this is your opinion and is directly contradicted by the FL statutes already posted on the subject.

Perhaps that is the entire issue with respect to whether criminal charges should be filed against the uc cops (although Hammer4NC has made a strong case that it is not). There is more to it, though.

The issue is also whether the cops should engage in undercover activities in a manner that directly precipitates a shooting.

Should the cops set up their drug dealing sting on the sidewalk in front of a school or a playground? Er, I guess that might be bad judgment.

Should they do it in front of a home in spite of strong objections by the homeowner? Gee, that sounds ok... why not? If the guy has nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Or should us sheeple just keep quiet and let the cops do their job, as long as they don't trespass?

Mac,
You are correct that there is more to it, and most reasonable folks have already agreed that the LEOs in question have a moral responsibility and from a common sense stand point should be held responsible for their part in this. Most of us already understand and agree on that. The few that don't would not likely be swayed even if the LEO's in question were to come out and admit
to some sort of wrong doing.

 

[joab]

Once again Joab, this is your opinion and is directly contradicted by the FL statutes already posted on the subject.

Perhaps you could posts those statutes, the only ones I have seen posted here specifically prohibit the use of deadly force to evict simple trespassers, which it seems was not even the case here.
If you do not have the right to use deadly force the you do not have the right to threaten the use of deadly force. When you do so while in possession of a firearm it is aggravated battery in Florida and is a three year mandatory forcible felony, but we have been all over that already

 

[peace]

"POPS" died a hero to me....

I have read this thread from its start to where it is now and find it very thought provoking.

I used to live in a good neighborhood that was being taken over by drug pushers. Police response was poor, meaning never under 30 minutes and most times upwards to four hours.

After numerous warnings to the young drug pushers on the block to remove themselves, I came home from work to find them selling from the corner all the way up to my home, just about the complete stretch of the block.
Not having a gun in my truck I jumped out brandishing a metal softball bat. Yeah, I was a little afraid that they might fire me up with automatic weapons but adrenaline was in charge and I was just fed up. Didn't actually applie the bat but I did a heak of a lot of threatening, until the block was cleared, and it gave courage to my neighbors' and they all sported bats until the scourge was cleansed from the neighborhood.

It is not just the sale of drugs that is the problem, but every thing that surrounds it. The women whom sell themselves for it, the violence that surrounds it, etc.
My children were in elementary school then, and our neighborhood was a family neighborhood.
It just seemed that the druggies were trying to claim this neighborhood as their own as they had done only a couple of blocks over, not a pretty sight. Once so designated, even the police would not interfere.

So "Pops" may not have been operating in the letter of the law but I know from first hand experience that sometimes his way is the only way left to the citizens of a neighborhood. It is not everyone's reality but it is the legitimate reality of some.

I can not condone the actions of the LEO's at not taking the steps which could have avoided this incident. In "Pops" mind they were drug dealers, real live zombies in his front yard, not an imaginary SHTF scenario.

DRUG DEALERS=REAL LIVE ZOMBIES

 

[joab]

The few that don't would not likely be swayed even if the LEO's in question were to come out and admit
to some sort of wrong doing.

See Intune and Paco this is the type of comment I was talking about.

 

[joab]

So "Pops" may not have been operating in the letter of the law but I know from first hand experience that sometimes his way is the only way left to the citizens of a neighborhood. It is not everyone's reality but it is the legitimate reality of some.

We have a neighborhood in Orlando ,some may know it
It's in between Parramore and the Trail between Michigan and Gore, if you have ever spent any time here you have heard of it.

A woman got tired of the drugs and prostitution on her street and started taking pictures and videos of the deals and a few other neighbors followed suit
I worked nights and would sometimes have to drop a worker off in the area.
It was irritating seeing a man video taping me as I stopped to let the guy out of my company truck, and I wasn't doing anything illegal.
In short time these camera shy pushers and hookers moved on.
I know for a fact that these photographers were armed but the criminals did not so therefore there was no threat of deadly force and no crime committed by these activists.
They achieved their goal of ridding these people from public property without any violence or macho posturing much less pulling guns on these people around like vigilantes.
Pops chose the more irresponsible option

 

[TCB in TN]

Jaob,

One of the main problems with your entire position is that law does not exist only for it's own sake. Law exists only to protect the citizens of a society. As such, LEO should exist only for the protection of those citizens. Your postition is that LEOs must be proven to have been at fault, to have broken the law, while the citizens that the law itself, and the LEOs charged with enforcing it, are supposed to protect have lesser rights, and a lessor standing, as evidenced by your assumption that the citizen was wrong, guilty and should have been shot. You have gone so far as to make statements that are far fetched, and have been pulled out of thin air to support your position.

The police had staged these stings in front of his home before, maybe he just got tired of them.

Perhaps the man did in fact know that these were cops and didn't like cops, that doesn't sound farfetched at all.

Second, is that the statutes presented apply, and are relatively simple to read and understand. Deadly force, as posted several times above, by definition is an action of force likely to result in death or great bodily harm. With the expressed example being the FIRING of a weapon. Other examples we have given are SWINGING a bat, STABBING or STRIKING with a knife, etc. Having and pointing a weapon at someone in and of itself would not by that definition be deadly force. Only upon the act of USING that weapon would force then move into DEADLY FORCE. Simple enough concept and one that is both plainly stated and actually makes sense.

 

[peace]

A Fine Point...

A woman got tired of the drugs and prostitution on her street and started taking pictures and videos of the deals and a few other neighbors followed suit
I worked nights and would sometimes have to drop a worker off in the area.
It was irritating seeing a man video taping me as I stopped to let the guy out of my company truck, and I wasn't doing anything illegal.
In short time these camera shy pushers and hookers moved on.
I know for a fact that these photographers were armed but the criminals did not so therefore there was no threat of deadly force and no crime committed by these activists.
They achieved their goal of ridding these people from public property without any violence or macho posturing much less pulling guns on these people around like vigilantes.
Pops chose the more irresponsible option

Today with my knowledge of photography, technology and weapons, I would approve of this method also. Not everyone is as astute in the use of photography and I would say maybe the LEO's should have tried this method also, maybe they just chose the least responsible method.
Go figure.

 

[Derby FALs]

This has to be one of the longest mental masturbation threads I have seen in a long time.

 

[Intune]

joab-

See Intune and Paco this is the type of comment I was talking about.

I hear ya. Folks, we need more facts not a tv newscasters version of what went down. We can discuss this as long as everyone agrees that a bunch of big IF's exist.
IF the UC's were on his property.
IF they weren't.
IF he asked them to leave twice.
IF he pointed a weapon at them.
IF he didn't point it.
IF he fired first.
IF they fired first.
IF they id'd as LEO's.
IF they did not.
IF they followed him to the backyard and shot an incapacitated man.
IF he tried to shoot at them again in the backyard.
IF the witnesses have any credibility.
IF they don't.
Lotta IF's, eh?

 

[joab]

Your postition is that LEOs must be proven to have been at fault, to have broken the law, while the citizens that the law itself, and the LEOs charged with enforcing it, are supposed to protect have lesser rights, and a lessor standing, as evidenced by your assumption that the citizen was wrong, guilty and should have been shot

Now that is a false and utterly ridiculous accusation.
Where have I said that LEO's in general need to be proven at fault.
My statements in this thread apply to this issue only and my position on THESE LEOs is drawn from what these LEOs did, and not as LEOs but as citizens with the right to self defense
My presumption that THIS citizen was wrong is based on the illegal actions of THIS citizen
Your position is more that LEOS have lessor rights I have made no presumptions based on what the jobs of these men were, can you say that?

I defy you to find anything to support this simplistic claim

Perhaps the man did in fact know that these were cops and didn't like cops, that doesn't sound farfetched at all.

And that statement was fully explained as an example of the same type asinine inductive leaps that other were making. Hoping that others will not take the time to read the comments is a poor way to try to win support for your argument

Lotta IF's, eh?

It wouldn't take to much research to see that that was my point from the beginning, especially since I mad a similar comment way back.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

thanks paco for the video link. i just watched it and it inconclusive really. it shows some cinder block where an officer was allegedly sitting which is a few feet in front of a tree (that was used for cover). it is difficult to tell if this officer was on his property.

interestingly, the video says that only one undercover officer may have been trespassing and not two. the 2nd officer engaged the gunfight probably as a backup role.

TCB in TN wrote:

The whole issue relates to whether the LEOs in question were in fact trespassing or not. If they were trespssing then what you or I think is immaterial, as the FL LAW says that he has the right to run them off using force.

i think there is a legal distinction between the use of force and the imminent threat of deadly force. that is where alot of the discussion is centering around. using force from what i can see does not include using the threat of deadly force while brandishing a firearm. that is the imminent use of deadly force, and the only way to defend oneself against the imminent use of deadly force is with deadly force itself, right? what you are implying is that if Person A believes Person B is trespassing he can use any force he feels, including the imminent threat of deadly force, to remove Person A off of his property and that Person A is hereby deprived of any right to self defense and can only run away. that is not what the law says. the old man clearly used an inappropriate and excessive amount of force in this situation and escalated the situation.

this is how some see it:

officer trespassed and was told to leave twice by the homeowner. officer should have reasonably known that when the homeowner left he was going to return with a gun and use it to remove him off of his property.

this is how others see it:

homeowner left the situation and went back inside his home. rather than call 911 like he should have, he got a gun and confronted the trespasser. homeowner should have reasonably known that confronting someone with a gun and making death threats would escalate the situation into a deadly force confrontation.

i think the officers could not have reasonably known this man would return with a gun. i think the citizen should have reasonably known that returning to the confrontation with a gun in his hand making death threats would most likely result in a violent confrontation.

insiduous_calm wrote:

There is a specific florida statue governing the use of force to terminate an unlawful trespass. The law does not care about your feelings, it does not mention the application of a reasonable man standard, it simply says one can use force to terminate an unlawful trespass.

the law i believe makes a distinction between the use of force and the imminent use of deadly force. that is where you and i disagree. you believe that brandishing a gun and making death threats is not tantamount to using deadly force because there was no discharge of a firearm. what i am saying is there is no legal expectation to be shot at before you can defend yourself with deadly force, hence, the imminent use of deadly force (i.e. brandishing a gun and making death threats) is much more than just a simple use of force.

The officers had a legal duty to retreat if they were trespassing before they could use deadly force. By all accounts so far they advanced from wherever they were.

im not sure if you saw the video that paco pointed out but it shows the officer took cover behind a tree that was a few feet away from him. i dont think that qualifies as advancing a trespassing incident. i think that is a simple rule in surviving a gunfight (moving to available cover).

I understand they you and Joab are willing to believe the cops can do no wrong. The law in this case does not support those assertions though. The simple fact of the matter is that probably 60% of the people on this board would have confronted a couple of drug dealers on their property with gun in hand.

well i do believe the cops can and do commit crimes, heck, one was sentenced here in Austin yesterday for official oppression. he deserved it too. on duty and groped a female college student and convicted by a court of 3 judges (no jury). no jury swaying in that incident. he was a bad cop that deserves the felony conviction he received.

here's the news link to that situation:

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/020207kvuedeputygroping-cb.44ff5154.html

for the record i dont blindly support cops. when the blatantly violate the law they need to have a stiffer penalty than an ordinary citizen due to their law enforcement status. but in this incident involving this old man i do think they acted accordingly to the imminent threat of deadly force.

Frankly, I've gone out of my way to be open minded and even keeled here. I've already been called a cop basher and a bigot when clearly that's not true. This is done by people like Joab and you because you can't excuse the behavior of the officers so you attack those that complain about it or call for equal application of the law. For once will someone have the integrity to admit that cops are not above the law, they deserve no special treatment, pro or con, and if they screw up they deserve the same treatment, punishment, and attention that any other joe schmoe would get?

as have i. i haven't called you a cop basher or a bigot, perhaps someone else has. i think you may need to re-read the posts to see exactly who is calling you names, it certainly isn't me. i haven't attacked you, and if i have i'd like to see where i have?

i have already stated the cops are not above the law and deserve no special treatment, and if they blatantly screw up they deserve a stiffer sentence.

as far as the police pursuing him to the rear of his property, by then he had already fired shots at them and they had already shot him at least once. of course they have a legal duty to locate him for 2 reasons: (1) they had to see if he was wounded and to provide medical attention for him and (2) if he was still a public safety hazard discharging rounds then they need to address that situation still.

someone asked about the legality of police doing things undercover, like buying/selling drugs. if you want some case law that i found that shows that an the US Court of Appeals recognizes undercover police involved in drug transactions as being legal look at this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=021248

 

[TCB in TN]

i think there is a legal distinction between the use of force and the [b}imminent threat of deadly force.

I appreciate that you think that there is. And in certain situations there probably are, but so far (in this situation) the only Statutes that have been posted have been to show the definition of Deadly Force, and the statutes that says that the property owner has a right to use force but not deadly force to remove trespassers. Based on those statutes, if the story told is correct then the LEOs should be held accountable for their actions. If you have some other statute that contradicts what they posted then I would be certainly willing to read it and if it is wrong then I might change my mind about the legal opinion I have of this situation so far.

Now morally and from a common sense stand point then if even 1/2 of the information given about the situation is true then the LEOs in question screwed up.

 

[Biker]

The cops could have either identified themselves or moved on. Either would have prevented the tragic outcome of the situation, I believe, given Pops' history. They chose not to. An old man is dead as a consequence of these poor choices. How can anyone defend them?
Just 'cause it's legal, don't make it right and just 'cause it's illegal don't make it wrong.

Biker

 

[pacodelahoya]

Biker,
don't think to hard or long about it, you'll just give yourself a headache.

 

[joab]

From the Divison of Licensing page on lawful self defense

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.

The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term.

An old man is dead as a consequence of these poor choices. How can anyone defend them?

Because he is dead as a result of his poor choices. Nothing the other guys did introduce violence or the potential for a deadly encounter.
The police did not precipitate his violence his inability to control his base instincts and behavior did. How can any one deny that?

 

[Biker]

Like many other things in life, I just don't get it. The old bastard didn't have to die. He just wanted to do his part in trying to take his neighborhood back from the druggies and two UC cops backed him into a corner and greased him.
Don't seem right...

Biker

 

[TCB in TN]

Sorry Joab,

But your example is not accurate. First of all you are trying to use a statute from the division of Liscensing. That has nothing to do with a homeowner and removing trespassers. Second the example is of a person pulling a gun on another person where the person pulling the gun is not on their own property. Please find something that supercedes the right of the homeowner to remove a trespasser using force, but not deadly force?

Until you find a statute that supercedes that then you haven't brought any important info to the discussion.

 

[another okie]

Right of way is different than outright ownership. A person's land may be subject to a right of way; that doesn't mean they don't own it.

 

[Biker]

joab...

You edited your post after my last. I find that dishonest.
Yes, the cops - to anyone with any degree of objective honesty - pushed this situation to the unfortunate conclusion.
I'm done with you. Take the train. I don't take kindly to folks who cheat at checkers, so to speak.

Biker

 

[xd45gaper]

the only force he could have used was non deadly force here is an page from Florida Firearms, Law, Use & Ownership 2006

Justifiable use of Force NON DEADLY FORCE

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force against another person, when and to the extent he reasonably believes that such force is necessarry to defend himself or another from the person's imminent use of unlawful force. F.S. 776.031

A person may use NON DEADLY force to stop the commission of a misdemeanor or non violent felony upon him self, or prperty which he has ownership or possessory interest in, or a legal duty to protect.
F.S 776.031


EXAMPLE

A trespasser who refuses to leave your premises after being asked to leave
,a person attacks you with fists, someone tries to steal something from you short of a robbery or burglary. a person who is committing a criminal mischief on your property.


using a loaded gun as "non deadly force" ?????