Jacksonville, Fla Man killed by LEOs in yard.

[TCB in TN]

776.06 Deadly force.--

(1) The term "deadly force" means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and

(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.

XD the term deadly force has to do with the act of using the weapon, as stated above in the FL statutes.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

biker wrote:

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.

do you mean figuratively speaking or actually physically backed him into a corner?

figuratively speaking, no, they did not. he had the available option to call 911 and chose not to and instead chose to pick up a gun to win an argument.

as far as physically backing him into a corner, i.e. the witness statement given to the news that the man retreated into the rear of his property and shot again, i think the officers had an duty to either apprehend the person firing shots or render medical attention if he was no longer a threat.

i don't think they intentionally set out that day to find some honest citizen to kill.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

TCB in TN wrote:

XD the term deadly force has to do with the act of using the weapon, as stated above in the FL statutes.

the law, if you notice, states, "but is not limited to," which is my contention (of what i said earlier) that you don't think applies here.

that means that those two examples are not the only two examples that the law would define as deadly force. they are simply two examples.

as i have said before, i believe the law clearly makes a distinction between the regular use of force and the imminent use of deadly force.

if the imminent use of deadly force is categorized as force (not deadly force), then you can use the imminent use of deadly force where force is legally justified, correct?

that means if you are in a public place, and Person A threatens to "kick your ass", then he has already used force (the threat of force is considered a use of force, however minimal). does that justify you to brandish a firearm and threaten deadly force? i think not.

that also means if someone assaults you (simple assault) like pushes you or slaps in you in the face, you can brandish a firearm and threaten to use deadly force? let's say the assailant is a female who weighs 100 pounds and you are a male who weighs 225 pounds? does the law still allow you to draw your gun and make a threat of deadly force? i think not.

you can use force against a shoplifter too. detaining them, i.e. telling them they are not free to leave, is another example of a use of force (again a minimal use of force). so if Person A is suspected of stealing a candy bar, are you justified in brandishing a firearm and threatening deadly force? i think not.

 

[joab]

You edited your post after my last. I find that dishonest.

What did I edit that you find dishonest
I edit my posts frequently for spelling and for clarity. I find that I have to choose my words carefully to ward off the twisters.

The fact that you exit on the premise that I am being dishonest instead of asking for clarification is something that I find dishonest and childish

First of all you are trying to use a statute from the division of Liscensing.

Well first off it is not a statute is is from the Florida agency responsible for licensing CCWs giving their opinion of the laws that regulate the use of firearms in self defense situations

That has nothing to do with a homeowner and removing trespassers.

It does until you start splitting frog hairs both are example of what is not a self defense situation.
saying that they are irrelevant because they don't spell out the exact situation you are looking for is like saying that case involving armed robbery with a knife is in no way similar to a case involving armed robbery with a hammer. You would have to be deliberately obtuse not to see the correlation.
Especially when the second quote specifically defense the penalty for threatening someone while in possession of a firearm.
I know you don't want to see it. But are you going to tell me that it doesn't at the very least support my statement that if you can't legally use deadly force then you can't legally threaten it while in possession of a firearm

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

TCB in TN wrote:

That has nothing to do with a homeowner and removing trespassers.

Use of force laws apply universally to police officers, private citizens carrying weapons, and private citizens protecting property, be it for shoplifting or trespassing.

there is no use of force law for each given situation. they are all under the Florida Statutes.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

at least your honest

"I am bigoted against the police for a lot of reasons."

kinda funny how you word it though


sad that old man got killed but at best even his family admits he'd gone out with his gun often playing bad ass. bad plan finally got him dead. the video shows him darn close to the tree and cop when he fired closer than i'd want him. given the "persona" of so many of the online heroes of the revolution we have here i can understand why they feel compelled to defend a man who had the nads to actually do what they only fantasize about. this poor man proves why they are safer remaining in the fantasy world

 

[geronimotwo]

does brandishing a loaded weapon constitute use of deadly force? according to statute shown above they only give examples of firing a firearm as "deadly force", and i think that statute applies to leo.

the video shows him darn close to the tree and cop when he fired

also, is there a second video i'm missing besides the jax news4 link?

 

[joab]

does brandishing a loaded weapon constitute use of deadly force?

It does if you point it at someone.

First off, it still has not been determined who fired first or whether Pops was pointing the gun at the group or not. It has not been established that the cops were even trespassing but the video described shows that they were not. But then again perhaps they were inadvertently wandering on to his property from time to time during the three hours that they were there, but then Pops would have also had three hours to call the police to report intruders, which he may or may have done

But lets see if we can tone down and try to agree on what we know or can logically deduce to be true

Pops had a gun when he confronted the group to force them to leave, yes?

Statements from his family would at least suggest that he was in the habit of confronting other groups while possession of this gun, yes?

If you try to use force with a firearm in your hand would we not all agree that at the very least suggest the threat the imminent threat of deadly force ?
When a cop pulls his gun and orders you to not move He is not telling you that you can play with his new toy if you comply, he is threatening to shoot you if you don't

Given these circumstances
Somebody please rationally explain to me why anybody would have the legal right to threaten imminent deadly force when you have no legal right to use deadly force.
If you can't explain that please tell me why you would not have the legal right to act on that threat of imminent deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that the person will fulfill that threat with the very means that he has in his hand

The question of who shot first will only come out when the video does, oh yeah you know they have one. Until then we can only go on what we know to be true Pops approached the situation with gun in hand which turned out to be a tragic mistake his part.
I am not glad that he died and don't think that he deserved to die. I think he did what he did for what he thought were noble reasons, but his actions alone caused the predicament that he now finds himself in.

 

[peace]

sad that old man got killed but at best even his family admits he'd gone out with his gun often playing bad ass. bad plan finally got him dead. the video shows him darn close to the tree and cop when he fired closer than i'd want him. given the "persona" of so many of the online heroes of the revolution we have here i can understand why they feel compelled to defend a man who had the nads to actuallt do what they only fantasize about. this poor man proves why the arer safer remaining in the fantasy world

I heard them say he was territorial, which says to me that he tried to protect his home and property from bad asses, not that he played bad ass.
I know personally that living in some neighborhoods is like living in a combat zone.
Any territory you give up will take a long hard battle to regain.
I remember me and my wife sleeping in two and three hour shifts so we could keep armed watch over our station wagon for if we didn't it would be stolen. Four attempts were made where they broke the ignition. Once the cop showed up shortly after I chased them away with a rifle and he showed me with a screw driver how close they were to driving off.
That doesn't count the number of times our and our neighbors' homes were broken into. Or when you come home from work and the thugs block your entrance to your own home.

So yeah Pops could have very well been me because in those days I can remember asking the gentlemen to please move off the entrance steps and being ignored until finally I told them if they are there when I returned I would have something for them.
Got my little rimfire and cleared the 14 round magazine over their heads and never had to clear the entrance ever again. Not the wisest move but it worked.

I know how to survive in the jungle and how to live in civilization. Sometimes they are the same. Nobody really knows what this man may have had to put up with on a daily and nightly basis. But early on in this thread someone mentioned that real community policing would have taken the concerns and needs of the citizens in to account and made provisions for them. Unfortunately we don't have those kind of officers anymore.
Today's cruiser jockeys and bladerunners really don't give a darn about the community ... the We in We the people, they all seem so occupied in their own power trips. It is rare to find a regular line officer whom has been on the job long enough to gain some real life wisdom.

Don't get me wrong I support the officers in my community, and believe that we have given many of our neighborhoods over to the crime lords. But when someone stands up for their little piece of ground against the perceived threat of Drug Pushers in their front yard and LEO's waste him then something is very wrong with that picture.

I am sure that laying there on the ground could have been me with cop bullets in me. So I feel for Mr. Singletary.

It has always been my belief that if you have a firearm in your possession and maybe even pointed at the person you were asking to leave your property that it was alright. In the rural areas of upstate NY I have seen that scenario played out many times. I have seen State Troopers back down when warned not to come on someones property with a rifle or shotgun in their hands. Don't city folks have any similar rights?

 

[geronimotwo]

but his actions alone caused the predicament that he now finds himself in

i agree to the extent that he would not be dead if he had not gone out with a gun, ( a fine case to judge gun ownership on )but i still feel that this was handled badly by the leo's on scene, and better judgement on their behalf prior to, and during the shooting also could have avoided this.

(supposition) leo's in drug dealer mode, "wat u talkin 'bout gramps? you come out 'gin and we gonna pop you"

or

(supposition) leo's in drug dealer mode, "i'm sorry sir but we are going to remain on your property, as it is a right of way where anyone can sell drugs at this time."

 

[TCB in TN]

that also means if someone assaults you (simple assault) like pushes you or slaps in you in the face, you can brandish a firearm and threaten to use deadly force? let's say the assailant is a female who weighs 100 pounds and you are a male who weighs 225 pounds? does the law still allow you to draw your gun and make a threat of deadly force? i think not.

Well lets suppose it is the other way around. Does it matter if the person who assaults you is 225 and you are 100? Does that give the 100 lb person the right to pull a weapon to defend themself?

How about if you are 81 and the 2 young thugs on your property are selling drugs, and they refuse to bug out?

If you want to start putting the situational items into the picture then you can make a great case that POPS had every reason to fear for his life.

2 drug dealers have taken up a position on his property and refuse to leave. Drug dealers are certainly prone to violence and I know I would be afraid for my life, or that of my family were that to happen.

Now all of that is just a bunch of wag about the situation, and neither you, I, nor anyone else should get into that.

As far as the statutes, well it clearly states firing, and while others might be included, the way it is written states what does constitute deadly force, and that is an actual action FIRING. So what we do know is that it was legal for POP to walk around his yard armed, it is stated to be legal to use force to drive of trespassers, and so even if you are right, then up until he points the gun he is still legal. And since pointing a gun in and of itself is not likely to result in death or great bodily harm, then I can't see it meeting the threshold for deadly force. You have to make a much bigger stretch to make it so. And another point to remember is that you need no liscence to CCW if you are on your own property. As such those statutes would mean nothing.

And as I have said many times before if the entirety of your argument rests on what happened after the 2nd time they were asked to move from his property, especially if it is as stated that they had put up stings there in the past, and had contacted him to let him know after he asked them to leave, then it is even more damning!

2 UC LEOs should have moved on, let the guy know who they were, had someone from the precint give him a call, after the 1st time he came out. 2nd time, they really should have done something to defuse the situation. 3rd time....... well, it never should have made it to the 3rd time.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

TCB in TN wrote:

Does it matter if the person who assaults you is 225 and you are 100? Does that give the 100 lb person the right to pull a weapon to defend themself?

there needs to be more to it, but generally, a 100 pound person can more readily justify the quicker escalation of force.

How about if you are 81 and the 2 young thugs on your property are selling drugs, and they refuse to bug out?

then you call 911 instead of taking a pistol and returning to a situation simply to escalate it. there is no self defense justification when you re-insert yourself into a situation.

for example, let's say two people are in an argument and Person A punches Person B in the mouth. Person B leaves the scene and returns a few minutes later and assaults Person A by punching him in the gut. Person A has committed assault, but Person B is not acting in self-defense as he left the situation and returned without any necessity. thus Person B is also guilty of assault.

2 drug dealers have taken up a position on his property and refuse to leave. Drug dealers are certainly prone to violence and I know I would be afraid for my life, or that of my family were that to happen.

then the smart and reasonable thing to do is to call the police if you are in fear for your life without returning to the situation with a gun. if you told some dope dealers to leave and they didnt, and you went back inside to get your gun because you were in fear for your life, then why did you go back?

As far as the statutes, well it clearly states firing, and while others might be included, the way it is written states what does constitute deadly force, and that is an actual action FIRING.

i previously brought up action vs. reaction. someone who is standing there with a gun in his hand and making threats about using his gun is clearly escalating a non-violent situation into a deadly force situation. it takes a split second to go from the gun in hand pointed at the ground to gun in hand pointed at someone and pulling the trigger.

a person cannot reasonably have the time to react to that split second and must be allowed to take steps to reasonably protect his own life.

there is a distinction between simple force (pushing, making verbal threats, etc), and brandishing a firearm while making a threat to use deadly force. the courts have upheld this distinction in many situations where the police have shot armed suspects and have been found not guilty of an illegal killing. deadly force is justified.

So what we do know is that it was legal for POP to walk around his yard armed, it is stated to be legal to use force to drive of trespassers, and so even if you are right, then up until he points the gun he is still legal.

you forgot to include if it is legal to brandish the gun at someone while making a threat to use deadly force, when the use of deadly force is not justified. the law does not make a clear distinction that pointing a gun is unlawful while brandishing a gun is lawful.

And since pointing a gun in and of itself is not likely to result in death or great bodily harm, then I can't see it meeting the threshold for deadly force.

pointing a gun does show intent to use deadly force, especially with a verbal threat to do so. that alone is justification for self defense by using deadly force. are you saying that if you were confronted by an armed individual you would just stand there and not make any move to defend yourself (i.e. shoot first) until he fires upon you?

And another point to remember is that you need no liscence to CCW if you are on your own property. As such those statutes would mean nothing.

you assume that the deadly force laws apply differently to someone who has a CCW vs. someone who does not. that is incorrect. please show us a law under the Florida Statues that states that a CCW holder has a different set of deadly force rules to abide by vs. someone who does not?

2 UC LEOs should have moved on, let the guy know who they were, had someone from the precint give him a call, after the 1st time he came out.

while undercover you don't just go tell anyone you are a cop. how did they know that his person may just simply be a neighborhood snitch? you tell this person you're a cop, he goes inside and calls the entire neighborhood and tells them a cop is posing undercover. what about your safety then? what if someone decided to do a drive-by on that officer because they knew he was a cop? these are tactical considerations that they must think about before blowing cover.

 

[joab]

I heard them say he was territorial, which says to me that he tried to protect his home and property from bad asses, not that he played bad ass.

I posted a link in which his nephew stated that he had a habit of initiating armed confrontations with people he assumed were drug dealers operating on his street

but i still feel that this was handled badly by the leo's on scene, and better judgement on their behalf prior to, and during the shooting also could have avoided this.

But that relies on speculation that I am not prepared to engage in. We simply do not know what exchanges the two groups had

All we do know is that Pops chose to initiate a violent encounter with a group of people(who based on the description of the video in all probability were on public property at the time), when the law did not support that decision any more than common sense did.

If you want to blame someone you could also blame the dealers in the past who by retreating in the face of his threats gave him the feeling of empowerment.
If one of them had kicked his ass maybe he would be alive today, I mean as long as we are blaming others for Pops action

a fine case to judge gun ownership on

Yes it is.
always remember the thing that Pops forgot just because you have a gun doesn't mean the other guy doesn't

 

[joab]

Don't city folks have any similar rights?

yes, we just aren't allowed to threaten deadly force just because we are irritated with you

But when someone stands up for their little piece of ground against the perceived threat of Drug Pushers in their front yard and LEO's waste him then something is very wrong with that picture.

But you are twisting the picture
The police did not shoot him for standing up for himself . He was shot him because he was threatening to use deadly force against someone when he had no right to do so and did not anticipate that they would fight back

Simply and unemotionally
He is dead because he made a tactical error based on an emotional decision to engage without fully considering the repercussions of that act.
In short he went up against a superior force with no clear plan of attack or at least without a good plan. It would have been the same outcome no matter who the opposing force was

 

[gc70]

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.

Some posters are compelled to prove with geometric precision that the police acted within the letter of the law; it must be another police victory if everything was done "by the book."

 

[Deanimator]

yes, we just aren't allowed to threaten deadly force just because we are irritated with you

But that's not strictly true, IS it?

Witness the case of Patrick Dorismond, an UNARMED man who "irritated" some NYPD undercovers who were aggressively soliciting him for drugs in a public street, to the point of a public nuisance. "Irritated" not only by his refusal to sell them drugs, but his attempt to physically run them away, one of them shot him to death. Needless to say, in Giuliani's New York, that was a "good" shoot.

Of course you could argue that they didn't actually "threaten" deadly force, since the cop shot him to death without warning...

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Deanimator wrote:

"Irritated" not only by his refusal to sell them drugs, but his attempt to physically run them away, one of them shot him to death.

not to get off topic, but i think you need to be a little more objective in listing the details of the situation you just talked about:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/25/national/main176270.shtml

According to Vasquez and his partner, the incident began when Dorismond threw a punch at the second officer during a confrontation outside a bar on Eighth Avenue. Dorismond and a friend, Kevin Kaiser, then allegedly attacked the officer.

Vasquez said that as he came to his partner's aid, he heard one of the two men scuffling with the officer saying, "Get his gun!" Vasquez claimed that he shouted "Police! Police!" before pulling his weapon.

When Dorismond grabbed at the gun, it went off and struck him in the chest with a single bullet, the officer claimed.

The 22-year-old Kaiser, in a news conference held five days after the shooting, insisted that the officers threw the first punch and Dorismond was only defending himself. Kaiser also alleged that neither cop identified himself as a police officer.

The officers were working the neighborhood trying to bust drug dealers when the shooting occurred.

sounds like the person that shot Dorismond, was Dorismond himself.

 

[geronimotwo]

He said because he has to decide whether officers involved acted properly, he doesn't want to be "tainted" by hearing early versions of what happened that he may later learn aren't true.

this is an interesting quote from sheriff john rutherford, evidently the man who will be in charge of the investigation. this would seem to say that rather than hearing the witnesses versions directly, he would like to get the "filtered" version.

complete story here

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/013007/met_neighborhood.shtml

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Deanimator wrote:

"Irritated" not only by his refusal to sell them drugs, but his attempt to physically run them away, one of them shot him to death.

not to get off topic, but i think you need to be a little more objective in listing the details of the situation you just talked about:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/25/national/main176270.shtml

According to Vasquez and his partner, the incident began when Dorismond threw a punch at the second officer during a confrontation outside a bar on Eighth Avenue. Dorismond and a friend, Kevin Kaiser, then allegedly attacked the officer.

Vasquez said that as he came to his partner's aid, he heard one of the two men scuffling with the officer saying, "Get his gun!" Vasquez claimed that he shouted "Police! Police!" before pulling his weapon.

When Dorismond grabbed at the gun, it went off and struck him in the chest with a single bullet, the officer claimed.

The 22-year-old Kaiser, in a news conference held five days after the shooting, insisted that the officers threw the first punch and Dorismond was only defending himself. Kaiser also alleged that neither cop identified himself as a police officer.

The officers were working the neighborhood trying to bust drug dealers when the shooting occurred.

looks like the person that shot Dorismond, was Dorismond himself.

from the news source quoted above (by geronimotwo):

The Rev. Michael C. Edwards, pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Institutional Church, said the shootings have the appearance of being race-related because Woods and Singletary were black.

does anyone know what race the U/C cops were? now someone's playing the race card......

 

[xd45gaper]

ill post one more thing today just to stir the pot a little. because ive worked 13 hours and i want to go drink beer

taken from the chapter, Self Defense, and the Lawful Use of Force.
From the book Florida Firearms Laws Uses & Ownership (this is not just CCW laws it is ALL the firearms laws in FL and the Laws on Deadly Force and Non Deadly Force I highly recommend it if you are a firearm owner or a CCW permit holder in the great state of FLA)

"From a legal standpoint only the discharge of a firearm always constitues the use of "deadly force." Whereas pointing a gun to ward of an ATTACK is, as a matter of law, the use of "Non Deadly Force" Rivero v. State, So.2d 953 (Fla. 3DCA 2004) On the other hand, it's still usually a jury issue on whether it constitues aggravated asault.

now what are you takes on that.

 

[Deanimator]

Vasquez said that as he came to his partner's aid, he heard one of the two men scuffling with the officer saying, "Get his gun!" Vasquez claimed that he shouted "Police! Police!" before pulling his weapon.

Assuming that's not a clumsy lie by the cop... how would Dorismond or his companion KNOW that the cop had a gun, UNLESS he had ALREADY pulled it on an UNARMED man? An entirely plausible alternate scenario is that rather than cease harassing Dorismond and his companion, the cop pulled his gun on an UNARMED man WITHOUT identifying himself, a struggle ensued for the apparent DRUG DEALER'S gun, and the UNARMED Dorismond was SHOT TO DEATH. Tell me again, what reason the cop had to pull his gun on an UNARMED man, whom HE was harassing?

Once again, we have cops creating a public nuisance, AGGRESSIVELY harassing somebody to sell them drugs even AFTER he has vehemently refused, then SHOOTING an UNARMED man for attempting to drive them away.

It seems that it's wrong for a non-cop to use a gun to drive apparent drug dealers off of his own property, but entirely proper for a policeman to SHOOT TO DEATH an UNARMED man, in a situation ENTIRELY of the cops' OWN making.

Apparently all "school solutions" must include as one of their elements a dead non-cop...

 

[TCB in TN]

"From a legal standpoint only the discharge of a firearm always constitues the use of "deadly force." Whereas pointing a gun to ward of an ATTACK is, as a matter of law, the use of "Non Deadly Force" Rivero v. State, So.2d 953 (Fla. 3DCA 2004) On the other hand, it's still usually a jury issue on whether it constitues aggravated asault.

That falls in line with the statute posted so many times above. I personally can think of times that perhaps it should constitute deadly force (for instance, you are using a weapon in the commision of a felony). But still it falls into line with the statute. If that is common practice, then if the LEOs were trespassing and property owners do in fact have the right to use force to remove said trespassers, then he would have been well within his rights!

 

[rangermonroe]

Intelectual dishonesty

You can dissect this nine ways from Sunday, and at the end of the day, we have a dead old guy.

I gather this from this thread:

The police can be on my grass up to where the sidewalk would have gone, if we had sidewalks, and can sell drugs there.

The police can sell drugs on the grass that I mow, in front of my house. They can bring a seat onto my grass and sell drugs from my lawn.

I can tell police/drug dealers to leave my property.
I can emphatically suggest that they leave right now.

Should I be obviously armed during any of our interactions, I can/should be shot dead on the spot.

Does this about sum up the LEO stance on this issue?

 

[Biker]

Rangermonroe...

I think that is a brilliant boil-down of the situation.
Pops is dead because cops would not stop selling drugs in front of his house.
They would not ID themselves and de-escalate the situation.

Spreadfire...
If a man dials 911 to report a drug dealer, he will likely get an ass chewing from the cops when they respond hours later. I suspect that you know this.

Biker

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

you forgot the most important part

don't point a gun at someone else who has one. and don't play cop on your street if you aren't willing to pay a price