Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elderly Man Dies In Gunfire Exchange With Undercover Officers
News4Jax.com ^ | January 28th, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 01/30/2007 1:12:56 PM PST by FreedomCalls

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An elderly man is dead and two Jacksonville Sheriff's Office detectives are on administrative leave after an undercover narcotics investigation ended in gunfire late Saturday.

According to the JSO, detectives Donald Maynard and James Narcisse had been working undercover for about three hours in the 2300 block of Westmont Street when 80-year-old Isaac Singletary approached them with a gun just before 6 p.m.

The officers said they ordered the man to put down the gun. However, Singletary did not drop his weapon and gunshots were exchanged.

Singletary was shot several times. Paramedics rushed him to Shands-Jacksonville Medical Center, where he died.

Less than 24 hours after the fatal police shooting left his uncle dead, Gary Evans told Channel 4 he's mad.

"Eighty-years-old, and they had to shoot him twice or more in order to subdue him. I'm very upset about it," Evans said.

He said his uncle was territorial and mad about the drugs on his street, and would often take his gun and try to scare the drug dealers away.

On Saturday, things went terribly wrong.

"My uncle asked the officer, which he didn't know at the time he was a police officer, to leave his property and he didn't," Evans said.

Neighbors told Channel 4 that Singletary was very protective of his property.

"You don't expect somebody to come pointing a gun at you, and once they do that, the officers will tell them to drop the gun," JSO Chief Dwain Senterfitt said. "We're still investigating what statements were made, but obviously, at that point, the officers' lives were in danger."

Police said they are still trying to figure out if the undercover officers had time to tell Singletary they were undercover officers. They said the detectives had to hid behind a tree to avoid being shot by Singletary.

According to police, the officers had been in the neighborhood since about 2:45 p.m., and had made five drug-related arrests.

"In the course of our undercover activity and making several arrests in this neighborhood, a man we now know to be a resident of that area, Mr. Isaac Singletary, was shot by officers," said Director of Investigations and Homeland Security Micheal Edwards.

Saturday's shooting was the third JSO-involved shooting in three weeks. Unlike last week's case at the Sable Palm Apartments, there is no dispute whether Singletary had a gun.

"There was a confrontation between them and an exchange of gunfire," Edwards said.

However, the question of who fired the first shot remains unanswered.

"He shot at my uncle first. He was the first one to shoot, and my uncle returned fire," Evans said.

"As you know, our investigation into any shooting must be thorough and methodical. At this time, there's a limited amount of information we can share," Edwards said.

As the details of the shooting are being hashed out, scared neighbors and sad family members remember Singletary.

"I looked in his eyes I saw his pain. I felt the pain for him. He never bothered anybody. He's never done anything to anybody. He didn't want anybody in his yard," said neighbor Antionette Douglas.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: addictedleroy; donutwatch; drugwar; guns; police; shooting; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-222 next last
To: FreedomCalls
He didn't die of natural causes did he? He died from bullets shot from the undercover drug squad. The police admit that much. You can't put your head in the sand and deny facts in the hope that they will go away.

You are completely irrational. I knew you were a "libertarian".

61 posted on 01/30/2007 3:32:39 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

you're confusing posters...that wasn't me.


62 posted on 01/30/2007 3:33:10 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: School of Rational Thought
A related question, is would or should someone believe them, especially considering so many cop impersonators.

I have had detectives come to my door to gather information. I would ask for ID and every time I would be handed a business card. Some became hostile when I would ask for a police ID.

63 posted on 01/30/2007 3:33:18 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
It is against the law to sell drugs, purchase drugs or possess drugs.

The dead gentleman in question was doing none of these.

The cops were doing their jobs in arresting people

They were "doing their job" impersonating drug dealers.

Grandpa drew down on the wrong guys.

What a disgustingly callous statement. They quite easily could have identified themselves, since clearly they weren't dealing with a "target".

This story makes me completely, totally ill.

64 posted on 01/30/2007 3:38:30 PM PST by AnnaZ (I keep 2 magnums in my desk.One's a gun and I keep it loaded.Other's a bottle and it keeps me loaded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
It is also against the law to trespass. If they were on his property they need to face manslaughter charges. One thing is for sure they should be finished as cops.

Just because the cops were (presumably) on this guy's property, does that give the resident the right to shoot them in all circumstances? What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then started blazing away? It seems to me pretty clear that there aren't enough facts here to draw conclusions but that doesn't stop some people, obviously.

65 posted on 01/30/2007 3:39:46 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
You are completely irrational.

"Irrational"? What is "irrational" about saying that he was shot by the drug squad? Are you seriously saying that he died of natural causes or that he isn't actually dead?


66 posted on 01/30/2007 3:39:54 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
you're confusing posters...that wasn't me.

You're right.

67 posted on 01/30/2007 3:41:24 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
"What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then started blazing away?"

"What if."

What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then the undercover police started blazing away?

"What if's" don't work very well in arguing either side of this.

68 posted on 01/30/2007 3:43:05 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
What is "irrational" about saying that he was shot by the drug squad?

The issue here is whether the police were justified in shooting the guy. Stop playing grubby dishonest games.

69 posted on 01/30/2007 3:44:54 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
"What if's" don't work very well in arguing either side of this.

It's called a hypothetical question. Sane intelligent people use this device frequently in logical discussions. You are completely unmoored here.

70 posted on 01/30/2007 3:47:42 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then the undercover police started blazing away?


71 posted on 01/30/2007 3:52:57 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Of course. LEO's are supermen who never make mistakes. Sure.

While this is not true, of course, what IS true is that there are never any consequences for those mistakes. The cops lie (or maybe don't even have to lie), the internal "investigation" clears them, and they're free to make more mistakes with guns.

72 posted on 01/30/2007 3:57:54 PM PST by j_tull (Massachusetts, the Gay State. Once the leader of the American Revolution, now leading its demise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

Trust me on this one RY...the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office does NOT deserve benefit of the doubt.


73 posted on 01/30/2007 3:59:54 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
The issue here is whether the police were justified in shooting the guy.

"Another grandpa dead because of an undercover drug squad." The issue is excessive police force against innocent citizens which results in their death.

74 posted on 01/30/2007 4:00:43 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then the undercover police started blazing away?

It would depend on the rest of the facts. The resident was apparently brandishing a gun. It is possible to do this in a way that is illegal and threatening and would give the cops the legal right to shoot first in self-defense. Possible, I say. I have no idea whether that is what happened in this particular case, but neither do any of the others on this thread who are condemning the officers.

75 posted on 01/30/2007 4:05:46 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: j_tull
While this is not true, of course, what IS true is that there are never any consequences for those mistakes.

Once in a while we get lucky.

The Sherrif's son was allowed to leave without consequences a couple of years ago after he got caught beating a confession out of an innocent kid one third his size.

76 posted on 01/30/2007 4:06:05 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte; FreedomCalls
"... I'm noodling out what figure of speech "which" is here."

Maybe it's something new, a parenthetical conjunction.

77 posted on 01/30/2007 4:09:05 PM PST by NicknamedBob (Sign says, "No dogs allowed -- except seeing-eye dogs" Why don't they put that sign down lower?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Trust me on this one RY...the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office does NOT deserve benefit of the doubt.

I understand that some law enforcement agencies are dysfunctional and that some cops are criminals. I'm not intending to give these or any other cops the benefit of the doubt, but rather I am reserving judgement altogether and encouraging others to do the same. Often when there is a police shooting the initial articles provide few facts and feature unsupported accusations by the deceased's next-of-kin like this article does. Often when such articles are posted on FR the "libertarians" show up on the thread and make cynical, irrational accusations against the cops and all who refuse to join in prematurely condemning the cops. I think this kind of "libertarian" activism is bad for FR, bad for conservatism and bad for America. Therefore I consider it a public service to try to throw some cold water on irrational, dishonest cop-hating.

78 posted on 01/30/2007 4:17:32 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: piytar

"Good question. I don't think that undercover officers are above the law. If they didn't have a warrant, would they be trespassers? If the elderly gentleman thought they were a threat, was he within his rights to use deadly force (point a gun at them) to make them leave? (Think Castle Doctrine in Fla.) If they were criminally trespassing, did they even have a right to self defense? (I thought that one generally didn't have a right to self defense if one was committing a crime and that crime lead to violence).

Finally, in the end, could these cops be looking at manslaughter charges? If they didn't have a right to self defense, that sure looks like a possibility.

I think that at the least, a humongous civil suit might be filed against the city.

Any legal eagles got any answers to these questions?"

Well, I am no legal eagle but these two undercovers are likely the only witnesses to how they approached the house and were asked to leave before the shooting started. I assume they will stick together, such charges as manslaughter carry heavy prison sentences and of course, let's not forget that these men probably saw how the Border Patrol agents were treated...


79 posted on 01/30/2007 4:19:00 PM PST by quantfive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
"My uncle asked the officer, which he didn't know at the time he was a police officer, to leave his property and he didn't," Evans said.

Undercover Officer = Secret Police maybe the cop should have been carrying a badge and LEFT the man's property when ordered to.

80 posted on 01/30/2007 4:19:58 PM PST by Centurion2000 (If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-222 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson