Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Jacksonville police shoot an unarmed man

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Police shoot an unarmed man. Is this a good shoot or not?

    http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-onlin...42274787.shtml



    A carjacking suspect who was shot Wednesday during a foot chase with Jacksonville police was 16 and unarmed, the Sheriff's Office said Thursday.

    The suspect and three others had fled the stolen vehicle after police started following them, Chief Rick Graham said. He said Officer Adam Hiers, a six-year veteran of the Sheriff's Office, was pursuing the driver behind a house in the 3400 block of Bark Street when Hiers fired one shot.

    It was undetermined whether the driver presented any threat or made a move toward the officer, Graham said, but Hiers "felt threatened by the suspect."

    According to a Florida statute on deadly force, officers are justified in the use of force "when necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice." The officer must "reasonably believe" the fleeing felon poses danger to the police or the public, or the suspect has committed a crime "involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person."

    State Attorney Harry Shorstein was unavailable for comment.

    Tyrone Marquis Taylor of Jacksonville was struck once in the lower knee and taken to Shands Jacksonville. Taylor was charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle, a felony. Last year, he was charged with auto theft.

    The stolen car's owner, who declined to comment to the Times-Union on Thursday, was sitting in the sport utility vehicle in his driveway with the keys in the ignition about 9 a.m. Wednesday when an unknown assailant dragged him out, according to the police report. He didn't say anything or show a weapon, but the 35-year-old victim feared for his life, the report said.

    Hiers and another officer were on patrol about 6:15 p.m. Wednesday near Emerson Street when they spotted a suspicious 2002 Nissan Xterra with four passengers.

    The officers ran the plate and identified the car as having been stolen a little more than a mile away.

    The officers followed the SUV through the 3400 block of Bark Street when the passengers abruptly opened the car doors and fled.

    Police detained but didn't charge one of the passengers, a juvenile whose name was redacted from the police report. They are still looking for the other two. The juvenile's caretaker declined to comment.

    Graham said it was unknown if any of the other passengers were carrying weapons.

    This is the 20th police shooting this year, surpassing the 2007 total of 19.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    He was a fleeing felon. Good shoot. He won't be doin' anymore car jacking.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    His family will come out and say that he was a good boy and then sue the city.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    argument too muddy

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Police shoot an unarmed man. Is this a good shoot or not?

    It was undetermined whether the driver presented any threat or made a move toward the officer, Graham said, but Hiers "felt threatened by the suspect."

    According to a Florida statute on deadly force, officers are justified in the use of force "when necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice." The officer must "reasonably believe" the fleeing felon poses danger to the police or the public, or the suspect has committed a crime "involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person."
    Just yesterday someone posted about the issue of whethera gun-carrier (in that case, a civilian) who is threatened by a person (ultimately determined to be unarmed) can draw or shoot at someone who is threatening him. He made a case that ....well, here is his case (with my emphasis added in red). It may apply to this Jacksonville situation.

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Good point and one which needs to be addressed by someone with greater knowledge than myself. However, it is my understanding that the victim's perception of grave danger and/or serious bodily harm is what dictates his use of deadly force. This gets us into the arena of what constitutes serious bodily harm and/or grave danger to one's self.

    I have a DVD entitled, "Deadly Force: Firearms, Self Defense, and the law". In it, a lawyer with extensive experience in the very area in California is interviewed and this question is raised. He states that serious/grave bodily harm can include lacerations and broken bones among other injuries. Now these types of injuries can most certainly result from a beating, so your question or "If you have to be getting beaten to death before you can draw yourweapon' is certainlya valid one. And according to this lawyer, the answer would be no.. you do not have to wait around until the beating has commenced. Your fear of such a thing would justify your use of deadly force. Still, there is the ever-present possibility that an over zealous prosecutor or a liberal leaning jury might see things differently.
    So, according to this poster, if the cop "felt threatened by the suspect," the cop's perception is what would justify deadly force or not. Seems simple enough.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    Good shoot.
    Director,
    Florida Carry, Inc.

    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
    -Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
    Brown v. United States, 1921

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    The hero cop felt "threatened" by an unarmed 16 year old running away from him. Or am I missing something here? If he faced an armed suspect pointing a gun at him he'd probably just wet himself.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Police shoot an unarmed man. Is this a good shoot or not?
    Here's a similar case.

    They, again, seem to use the same rationale as espousedin SouthernBoy's post about the civilian's justification for shooting a threat: "...the victim's perception of grave danger and/or serious bodily harm is what dictates his use of deadly force." and "fear of such a thing would justify your use of deadly force."

    If it is OK for a civilian to use this kind of thinking, I'd think that it would be similarly OK for a cop to do it.




    baltimoresun.com
    City officer shoots unarmed woman

    By Justin Fenton

    October 10, 2008


    A woman who proved to be unarmed was shot by police in Cherry Hill yesterday morning after she refused to show her hands to an officer, police said.

    About 9:30 a.m., police received a call about an armed person selling drugs in the 1700 block of Cherry Hill Road, in an industrial area of South Baltimore near a bus stop and the Cherry Hill light rail stop, said Sterling Clifford, a police spokesman.

    A patrol sergeant observed a woman who fit the description of the suspect and who had her hands behind her back, Clifford said. When she refused to show her hands, the officer drew his gun and fired one shot, striking her in the stomach. She was taken to an unidentified area hospital.

    Police said no weapon was recovered, though drugs were found among her possessions. They did not immediately identify the woman or the officer.

    "When you total everything up, between the call that he got and her actions on the scene, [the officer] felt in fear for his safety," said Donny Moses, a police spokesman. "He didn't know what was behind her back, she failed to comply, and he did what he thought was justified."

    Moses said internal affairs investigators as well as homicide detectives were looking into the incident.

    According to the Police Department's general orders, officers may use their service weapons in instances of self-defense or to arrest someone whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a felony involving the use or threat of deadly force or serious injury, or who poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

    An officer is required to give a verbal warning, unless doing so would increase the risk of harm to the officer or others, the orders state.

    There have been 17 police-involved shootings this year, 12 of which have been fatal, Moses said. The total is down from last year, when more than 30 people were shot by police, about a dozen of whom died.

    Passengers getting off of the light rail had to duck under crime scene tape to get through the area yesterday morning as homicide detectives gathered to the side.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.shooting10oct10,0,2547072.story

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Interesting point, Citizen.It takesa lot to stand up andpublicly say that. :quirky

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    3974 to 3099 is irritating

  12. #12
    Regular Member rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    The hero cop felt "threatened" by an unarmed 16 year old running away from him. Or am I missing something here? If he faced an armed suspect pointing a gun at him he'd probably just wet himself.
    Not from around here, are you?
    Director,
    Florida Carry, Inc.

    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
    -Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
    Brown v. United States, 1921

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Interesting point, Citizen.It takesa lot to stand up andpublicly say that. :quirky
    Hank,

    I won't start if you don't.

    I originally commented on something Gunslinger wrote, then realized a lot would depend on parts of the story that haven't come out interdependenton case law with respect to "felon dangerous to the community." I realized it was a post that could only be replied to with much speculation. So, I ditched it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Police shoot an unarmed man. Is this a good shoot or not?
    Here's a similar case.

    They, again, seem to use the same rationale as espousedin SouthernBoy's post about the civilian's justification for shooting a threat: "...the victim's perception of grave danger and/or serious bodily harm is what dictates his use of deadly force." and "fear of such a thing would justify your use of deadly force."

    If it is OK for a civilian to use this kind of thinking, I'd think that it would be similarly OK for a cop to do it.




    baltimoresun.com
    City officer shoots unarmed woman

    By Justin Fenton

    October 10, 2008


    A woman who proved to be unarmed was shot by police in Cherry Hill yesterday morning after she refused to show her hands to an officer, police said.

    About 9:30 a.m., police received a call about an armed person selling drugs in the 1700 block of Cherry Hill Road, in an industrial area of South Baltimore near a bus stop and the Cherry Hill light rail stop, said Sterling Clifford, a police spokesman.

    A patrol sergeant observed a woman who fit the description of the suspect and who had her hands behind her back, Clifford said. When she refused to show her hands, the officer drew his gun and fired one shot, striking her in the stomach. She was taken to an unidentified area hospital.

    Police said no weapon was recovered, though drugs were found among her possessions. They did not immediately identify the woman or the officer.

    "When you total everything up, between the call that he got and her actions on the scene, [the officer] felt in fear for his safety," said Donny Moses, a police spokesman. "He didn't know what was behind her back, she failed to comply, and he did what he thought was justified."

    Moses said internal affairs investigators as well as homicide detectives were looking into the incident.

    According to the Police Department's general orders, officers may use their service weapons in instances of self-defense or to arrest someone whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a felony involving the use or threat of deadly force or serious injury, or who poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

    An officer is required to give a verbal warning, unless doing so would increase the risk of harm to the officer or others, the orders state.

    There have been 17 police-involved shootings this year, 12 of which have been fatal, Moses said. The total is down from last year, when more than 30 people were shot by police, about a dozen of whom died.

    Passengers getting off of the light rail had to duck under crime scene tape to get through the area yesterday morning as homicide detectives gathered to the side.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.shooting10oct10,0,2547072.story
    Cherry Hill? Heh... The 'Hill' is the 'hood I worked when I was a cop (#924 and 925 Posts) altho there was no light rail then (Willy Don's Electric Train...) 'Still a dangerous area. "police received a call about an armed person selling drugs..." That set the 'stage' as it were for reasonable suspicion by the responding officer that the suspect was armed. Failure to show hands would further compound that suspicion and elicit reasonable fear (for anybody). Now... the only info that cop would have was the call from KGA that the suspect was armed.... and the actions of the suspect at the scene. I would have shot her too most likely.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    The hero cop felt "threatened" by an unarmed 16 year old running away from him. Or am I missing something here? If he faced an armed suspect pointing a gun at him he'd probably just wet himself.
    It's not the cop's safety... it's a 'public safety' issue. That the felon (fleeing and desperate) would be back among the populace to further predate. It was a good shoot.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    GOOD GUYS 1- BAD GUYS 0..........GOOD SHOOTING!!!:celebrate

  17. #17
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    rvrctyrngr wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    The hero cop felt "threatened" by an unarmed 16 year old running away from him. Or am I missing something here? If he faced an armed suspect pointing a gun at him he'd probably just wet himself.
    Not from around here, are you?
    Is Colorado "around here"?
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  18. #18
    Regular Member rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    Absolutely not.
    Director,
    Florida Carry, Inc.

    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
    -Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
    Brown v. United States, 1921

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    They shot an unarmed person--this was a bad shoot and the cops involved should be jailed.

    If any of us shot an unarmed person we would be in jail immediately--they should be no different.

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    They shot an unarmed person--this was a bad shoot and the cops involved should be jailed.

    If any of us shot an unarmed person we would be in jail immediately--they should be no different.

    Wrong!

    To clarify... it depends on the various statutes of the individual states.

    In my state of Utah... this is a GOOD SHOOT! if the initial reports are accurate.

    JoeSparky


    edited to add: "if the initial reports are accurate."
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    They shot an unarmed person--this was a bad shoot and the cops involved should be jailed.

    If any of us shot an unarmed person we would be in jail immediately--they should be no different.

    Wrong!

    To clarify... it depends on the various statutes of the individual states.

    In my state of Utah... this is a GOOD SHOOT! if the initial reports are accurate.

    JoeSparky


    edited to add: "if the initial reports are accurate."
    shooting an unarmed person is just as bad as shooting someone in the back....no weapon = no threat of death or serious bodily injury IF the person is far enough away so that he/she cannot engage you in close quarters for your weapon.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    They shot an unarmed person--this was a bad shoot and the cops involved should be jailed.

    If any of us shot an unarmed person we would be in jail immediately--they should be no different.

    Wrong!

    To clarify... it depends on the various statutes of the individual states.

    In my state of Utah... this is a GOOD SHOOT! if the initial reports are accurate.

    JoeSparky


    edited to add: "if the initial reports are accurate."
    HOWEVER, if the person who was being carjacked had shot this guy--that would have definitely been a justifiable shoot, because (1) you are in your car, and (2) you have absolutely NO duty to retreat from a criminal in the act of committing a violent crime against you on your own property, or in your on car. Once the man was out of the car and on foot--IF the police knew he was unarmed, then it was a bad shoot.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    They shot an unarmed person--this was a bad shoot and the cops involved should be jailed.

    If any of us shot an unarmed person we would be in jail immediately--they should be no different.

    Wrong!

    To clarify... it depends on the various statutes of the individual states.

    In my state of Utah... this is a GOOD SHOOT! if the initial reports are accurate.

    JoeSparky


    edited to add: "if the initial reports are accurate."
    I am assuming of course that the police knew or should have known this guy was unarmed at the time they were in foot pursuit...

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    The hero cop felt "threatened" by an unarmed 16 year old running away from him. Or am I missing something here? If he faced an armed suspect pointing a gun at him he'd probably just wet himself.
    It's not the cop's safety... it's a 'public safety' issue.Ā* That the felon (fleeing and desperate) would be back among the populace to further predate.Ā* It was a good shoot.
    preĀ·date
    tr.v. preĀ·datĀ·ed, preĀ·datĀ·ing, preĀ·dates
    1. To mark or designate with a date earlier than the actual one: predated the check.
    2. To precede in time; antedate.

  25. #25
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    They shot an unarmed person--this was a bad shoot and the cops involved should be jailed.

    If any of us shot an unarmed person we would be in jail immediately--they should be no different.

    Wrong!

    To clarify... it depends on the various statutes of the individual states.

    In my state of Utah... this is a GOOD SHOOT! if the initial reports are accurate.

    JoeSparky


    edited to add: "if the initial reports are accurate."
    shooting an unarmed person is just as bad as shooting someone in the back....no weapon = no threat of death or serious bodily injury IF the person is far enough away so that he/she cannot engage you in close quarters for your weapon.
    Police shooting an individual suspected of having committed a felony who is fleeing is a good shoot in Florida and several other states.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •