Florida... again... Mass shooting at a nightclub's teen night

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Prestor Jon**

nkelsch wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Okay well this is just bad. Not a helping the cause of trying to defend the majority of Police as good guys.

The second the 'organization' covers up, lies, defends these bad cops, they instantly BECOME bad cops. They are all guilty the second they begin the cover up or blue wall.

So the story is an obvious lie or exposure of gross incompetence.

*They say they were talking with the two men, then claim 'they couldn't hear them'
*They say people were at risk, but yet the officers were far away behind vehicles and no one else around.
*They were armed with SWAT gear but apparently no way to use binoculars to actually 'see' what they were shooting at clearly.
*They say the target was the 'non-compliant man with a gun', they shoot the other person who is complying and instead of 'rescuing' the innocent man they wounded with intentional friendly fire, they cuff him and let him bleed like an animal and render no aid and deny him his right to attempt to save his own life by applying pressure to his own wound.
*They say they can't 'hear them' to hear that there is no weapon and no threat... But when asked 'why did you shoot me' they can hear that and respond 'I don't know...'
*If he *DID* know he was shooting to 'save' the man from the violent armed offender, when you respond you say 'we were targeting a non-compliant armed person.'
*The Autistic man who probably lacks the ability to comply with orders is still in jail for no reason probably having his rights abused as we speak.

There is no way if this went to a jury where it could be vetted by cross-examination and the actual evidence, the lies would never stand up. But because the police as a whole are leaking lies to fill in the 'wait for the true facts' crowd, there will never be an indictment and the name of the officer will never be released.

*THIS* is the problem. Racist/bigot/violent cops CAUSE isolated bad stops which lead to excessive force... but the entire organization becomes involved when the coverup happens and the lies and fake evidence start being released. And the 'wait for the true facts' crowd only want the police story and then they are satiated and ready to acquit every time. All I want is a day in court as there is always enough to indite these cases.

This officer was better off being 'I panicked, it was a mistake'. Now he is a lying shitbag, dirty cop in a corrupt department.

Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.

**Kanluwen**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.

Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.

So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.

**Prestor Jon**

Kanluwen wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.

Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.

So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.

What clearly established statutory or constitional right did the cop violate in this instance? IF the cop fired because he thought or was told there was a gun/threat and the only reason the victim was shot was because the officer has bad aim that is matter of incompetence during the reasonable discharge of their duties (responding to a 911 call of a dangerous man with a gun).

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.

**Kanluwen**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.

Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.

So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.

What clearly established statutory or constitional right did the cop violate in this instance? IF the cop fired because he thought or was told there was a gun/threat and the only reason the victim was shot was because the officer has bad aim that is matter of incompetence during the reasonable discharge of their duties (responding to a 911 call of a dangerous man with a gun).

And if that's the case where the officer was incompetent through inadequate training, then the city can be held liable under the ruling established by City of Canton v. Harris.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.

Graham v. Connor held that police officers may be held liable under the Constitution for using excessive force. In fact, Graham v. Connor establishes that "willful, unreasonable conduct" is NOT the metric used(that was overturned by Graham v. Connor's establishment of the "objective reasonableness" standard rather than the "substantive due process" standard held up before) but rather the reasonableness of an officer's use of force must be judged "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight".

If ANY officer could justify this shooting, then they have no business being a police officer.

**Prestor Jon**

Kanluwen wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Cops have qualified immunity so there'll be no civil trial and if this is really just a matter of gross incompetence and not intentional harm or malice then there may not be a criminal trial either. This will probably lead to internal discipline with the police union getting the guy his job back later after the headlines go away.

Hafer v. Melo established that state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.

So yeah, the department can avoid a civil trial but the officer himself can most definitely be held accountable.

What clearly established statutory or constitional right did the cop violate in this instance? IF the cop fired because he thought or was told there was a gun/threat and the only reason the victim was shot was because the officer has bad aim that is matter of incompetence during the reasonable discharge of their duties (responding to a 911 call of a dangerous man with a gun).

And if that's the case where the officer was incompetent through inadequate training, then the city can be held liable under the ruling established by City of Canton v. Harris.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.

Graham v. Connor held that police officers may be held liable under the Constitution for using excessive force. In fact, Graham v. Connor establishes that "willful, unreasonable conduct" is NOT the metric used(that was overturned by Graham v. Connor's establishment of the "objective reasonableness" standard rather than the "substantive due process" standard held up before) but rather the reasonableness of an officer's use of force must be judged "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight".

If ANY officer could justify this shooting, then they have no business being a police officer.

The city and the department could and probably should be sued but the officer in question could conceivably keep his job.

If this was an issue of excessive force like Rodney King or something similar then I would agree with you about the officer not being protected with qualified immunity but this is allegedly an example of an accidenta shooting/negligent discharge. Either the cop was intending to shot the man with the toy truck and missed or never intended to shoot the victim and had a ND. Shooting at someboy you think is armed and dangerous but missing or negligently firing inadvertently doesn't seem to meet the standard of excessive force/rights violation.

**agnosto**

Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.

Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.

**kronk**

agnosto wrote:
Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.

Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.

I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".

**Prestor Jon**

kronk wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.

Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.

I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".

I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.

**agnosto**

Prestor Jon wrote:
kronk wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.

Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.

I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".

I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.

I think things might be a bit different here with the clarity and quality of the submitted video. It stretches credulity that we can see in a cell-phone video (assumption) that there isn't a weapon involved and somehow highly-trained police officers, carrying tactical gear are somehow unable to do so AND wind up shooting the wrong person. I've grown-up hunting and around firearms and I seem to have learned more than the Miami police seem to have; you don't fire unless you're sure of your target and where the shot will wind-up if you miss. If the officers felt a shot was justified, shouldn't the person with the best angle/shot be the one to pull the trigger? Or do they not teach officers to communicate with each other?

**nkelsch**

Prestor Jon wrote:
kronk wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.

Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.

I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".

I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.

And 'I thought I saw a weapon' is coded language for 'I am a bigot, the victim was a minority and I make illegal policing actions based upon personal beliefs that minorities are dangerous and violent' like in the example of that Austin police officer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/22/video-austin-police-body-slam-black-teacher-tell-her-blacks-have-violent-tendencies/

It basically can justify any action as you can make a judgement call that 'target is violent and armed because of demographics' and then 'any movement' is going for an unseen weapon.

**kronk**

nkelsch wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
kronk wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Just saw this story and the video and OMFG.
So, those rifles don't have scopes? Watching the video, before they shoot, you can clearly see that the sitting person is holding an object that is not in the shape of any weapon that I've ever seen and somehow the police were completely unable to identify the object? Wow.

Unlawful use of force (a tort), the officer(s) maybe held accountable for personal damages in a court; hopefully the victim pursues this course of action.

I agree. This is sickening. Perhaps there is more to this story, but I can't imagine what else they (the popo) can share that will make this a "good shoot".

I completely agree with you guys but what seems to have happened in the past with these kind of incidents is that the police say somebody thought it was a gun and if it had really been a gun then the ensuing events would have been reasonable/justifiable and that excuse seems to hold up more often than not because it's hard to prove in court that somebody didn't think it was a weapon or convince a jury that such a mistake is beyond the pale unreasonable.

And 'I thought I saw a weapon' is coded language for 'I am a bigot, the victim was a minority and I make illegal policing actions based upon personal beliefs that minorities are dangerous and violent' like in the example of that Austin police officer.

It basically can justify any action as you can make a judgement call that 'target is violent and armed because of demographics' and then 'any movement' is going for an unseen weapon.

Don't forget to tack on property damages for when they bleed on you.

/cop hate for one day

I fully support our police forces, but you guys really need to stop shooting black people that aren't doing anything. Time to deescalate.

**Frazzled**

SO if they were shooting at the autistic guy (er....WHY?) and hit the worker on the street, why did they cuff the worker and leave him for 20 minutes to bleed out?

**agnosto**

Frazzled wrote:
SO if they were shooting at the autistic guy (er....WHY?) and hit the worker on the street, why did they cuff the worker and leave him for 20 minutes to bleed out?

You see, you're applying too much rational thought to the scenario. The statement by the police is clearly intended for a much more neuron-lite audience.

**redleger**

Truth is even if the shot was unintentional or it was intentional and a miss, it could still be argued as attempted murder for allowing someone who was compliant to sit and possibly bleed out. There is an expectation to render aid. And no way does it take 20 min for an ambulance to arrive when called by police.

Hell my neighbor had heat exhaustion weed eating last week, by the time I got a towel soaked, and pulled him into the shade the ambulance was arriving.

No, this can not stand. I have in previous threads thought there was a possibility of justification for these discussions, but this is the line. You shall not pass!

**Yodhrin**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.

Don't worry, it won't be this one incident that takes away their sense of justice and being safe, because it's highly likely they've not had one since they were a vulnerable child. Or if one has survived unscathed this long, it will be taken care of by the constant barrage of negative media coverage, repeated everyday acts of unkindness and dismissive malice from "normal" people, and tendency of law enforcement to scapegoat any mentally ill people they can find near a crime for an easy conviction.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Yodhrin wrote:
Buttery Commissar wrote:
I hope the patient didn't end up scared of the police. I know that's not the focus of the story, but vulnerable adults shouldn't lose their sense of justice and being safe over the actions of one or two people.

Don't worry, it won't be this one incident that takes away their sense of justice and being safe, because it's highly likely they've not had one since they were a vulnerable child. Or if one has survived unscathed this long, it will be taken care of by the constant barrage of negative media coverage, repeated everyday acts of unkindness and dismissive malice from "normal" people, and tendency of law enforcement to scapegoat any mentally ill people they can find near a crime for an easy conviction.

I imabine that vulnerable autistic adults prone to outbursts have probably have countless encounters with the police by the time they reached adulthood.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

Well the officer has been named and placed on leave (reasonable enough)

and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),

but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)

**redleger**

Sounds like the department is doing the right thing in this case then. who would have thought it

**Herzlos**

With the reputation they have, and with such a clear cut case (and a surviving witness), I'm not sure they have much choice.

**Kanluwen**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well the officer has been named and placed on leave (reasonable enough)

and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),

but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)

That isn't enough.

If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.

**jreilly89**

Kanluwen wrote:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well the officer has been named and placed on leave (reasonable enough)

and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),

but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)

That isn't enough.

If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.

Murder? DIdn't the guy survive?

**Selym**

jreilly89 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well the officer has been named and placed on leave (reasonable enough)

and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),

but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)

That isn't enough.

If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.

Murder? DIdn't the guy survive?

Attached "Attempted" and we're good to roll.

**Mr. Burning**

Selym wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well the officer has been named and placed on leave (reasonable enough)

and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),

but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)

That isn't enough.

If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.

Murder? DIdn't the guy survive?
Attached "Attempted" and we're good to roll.

If the dept keeps even the false stories 'straight' they can manage the outcome of whatever penalty is handed to the officers involved.
Whats the worst that can happen here? members of the PoPo are less likely to get handed a custodial sentence.
Suspension.
Firing.
Resignation.
No longer SWAT qualified (IK,R)

The officers have to keep their mouths buttoned shut about what really happened so at best you can hope for maybe a breakdown and some contrition and the subsequent shunning by the rest of the dept for breaking silence. Hell, they will be told what story to tell.

Meanwhile is the autistic guy still behind bars or has he been let go (on bail obvs).

**Peregrine**

Selym wrote:
Murder? DIdn't the guy survive?
Attached "Attempted" and we're good to roll.

No, we're not. Murder requires deliberate intent to commit the crime. And, while the shooter seems to have been spectacularly incompetent, there doesn't seem to have been deliberate intent. The correct charge here would be negligence or assault with a deadly weapon (along with being fired and blacklisted from ever working as a cop again).

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well the officer has been named and placed on leave (reasonable enough)

and another officer has also been placed on unpaid leave over conflicting statements about the incident (not clear if the conflict is between their own statements or with those of the other officers),

but since the department has gone straight to unpaid leave it seems that they think it's serious (and eminently provable)

That isn't enough.

If any of the officers are even remotely suggesting/implying that there was a firearm present at the scene?
They should be fired and brought up on charges of conspiracy/accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter.

Kanluwen has the way of it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Selym wrote:
Murder? DIdn't the guy survive?
Attached "Attempted" and we're good to roll.

No, we're not. Murder requires deliberate intent to commit the crime. And, while the shooter seems to have been spectacularly incompetent, there doesn't seem to have been deliberate intent. The correct charge here would be negligence or assault with a deadly weapon (along with being fired and blacklisted from ever working as a cop again).

He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.

While responding to a call about an "armed" suspect and believing that the target had a gun and was going to use it. Obviously he didn't have a gun and the whole thing is an inexcusable level of incompetence, but that's negligence, not murder.

**Jihadin**

LEO is screwed for a major **** up of his own action. I can't even blame the department. He owns this 125% What a damn idiot. I would use harsher word but Motty but nerf me.....

**Dreadwinter**

Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.

While responding to a call about an "armed" suspect and believing that the target had a gun and was going to use it. Obviously he didn't have a gun and the whole thing is an inexcusable level of incompetence, but that's negligence, not murder.

Believing the suspect was armed and was going to use it on himself. So I mean, it makes perfect sense to just go ahead and shoot him, right?

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
He INTENDED to shoot the other other guy THREE times. Thats attempted manslaughter.

While responding to a call about an "armed" suspect and believing that the target had a gun and was going to use it. Obviously he didn't have a gun and the whole thing is an inexcusable level of incompetence, but that's negligence, not murder.

no. it was the intention to shoot someone who was not a reasonable threat.

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
no. it was the intention to shoot someone who was not a reasonable threat.

Which is incompetence, not malice. Since "attempted manslaughter", as you suggested, is an inherently absurd concept* your choices are attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon. Attempted murder is obviously not correct, and assault with a deadly weapon includes criminal negligence with a gun. I'm not defending this guy's actions at all, but crimes do have meanings and charging him with a crime he's obviously not guilty of is just a good way to let him go free.

*Since manslaughter refers to killing someone without intent, while "attempted" would mean that you tried to kill them. Attempted manslaughter doesn't appear to exist as a crime outside of legal fictions involved in plea bargains.