Posted on 01/30/2007 1:12:56 PM PST by FreedomCalls
You do not have sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the force was excessive or that the citizen was innocent.
"Hey, if incidents like these prevent just one American adult from smoking a joint, it's worth it.'
The day an American can plant a seed in the ground and smoke whatever comes up, the terrorists have won.
"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."
No doubt. Anyone can print up cards at home.
Certainly a conclusion can not be drawn from the evidence as we have it at this time, but it is simply disingenuous to claim the narrative as we have it doesn't weigh heavily against the police.
We're talking an octogenarian with a prior reputation (which the police seem to be oblivious to) and undercover police officers on a productive assignment.
P.S. as the police are agents of the state, this man deserves the presumption of innocence and it is not your place to strip him of it.
They seem to like killing dogs too.....
Seems kinda sad when you get killed by the "good guys"< /sarcasm>.
Well, they did get administrative leave at least....(kill an innocent, get a vacation!)
If cops would wear uniforms and drive marked vehicles when doing cop work, there would be no need for more information, and grandpa would probably still be alive.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Just because the state attorney and the Jacksonville's sheriff work together to incarcerate criminals doesn’t mean the two always see eye to eye.
Previously private disagreements between state attorney Harry Shorstein and Sheriff John Rutherford have become more public since recent shootings involving undercover narcotics detectives.
Shorstein is openly critical of Jacksonville Sheriff's Office's undercover drug operations such as the one that led to the fatal shooting of an 80-year-old man, who family members said thought he was confronting drug dealers who were actually officers, on Saturday.
exerpt from news4jax.com...it's the lead story
"Whether the cops properly identified themselves is a big question."
Whether I or anyone would or should believe them is an even better question. Anyone can yell "Police!", and flash a "badge" that looks real in the dark wearing 'hood gear.
Excessive? The elderly man is dead. Innocent? Of what defending himself from rouge 'undercover narcotics' cops who most likely looked like junkies about to rob him.
I do believe that if you do a little reading you will find that it is stated he told them to leave two or more times. And unless the tree one cop was hiding behind was in the street, it is a safe bet it was on the man's property.
One evening last week, about sixty miles from where I live, a lady was driving home. A cop car blue lighted her, she pulled over, then she was raped. Now the cops say it wasn't really a cop, just someone acting like a cop.
So ladies if you haven't done anything wrong , just follow unknowns advice and surrender. "Sac. Off"
I guess the officers in this case should have done that. But then again Mr. Singletary was armed, so that complicates the manner.
Then again, as someone stated earlier, there are a lot of impersonators out there now.
Tough call.
Apparently he did take responsibility for his behavior. It seems you are suggesting that a citizen has no right to bear arms on his own property. Where in this situation did the cops take responsibility for their behavior?
No of course not. But in these circumstances he would have been perfectly justified.
What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then started blazing away?
What if a giant grasshopper from Mars came and started killing everyone in sight?
(As long as we're makin' sh!t up might as well make it interesting.)
Dude! You seem to be genuinely trying to figure this out rationally, but you are doing a crap job. Let me try to help you:
The most important point is that, as you say, "a conclusion can not be drawn from the evidence as we have it at this time". This is the most simple, obvious and important point and most people on this thread can't seem to grasp it. You have, so congratulations to you for this. But then you immediately go off the rails by talking about the "evidence as we have it". We have almost no evidence except the statements of the next-of-kin which in this context (in the immediate, emotional aftermath of their relative's death; in absence of supporting evidence; not given under oath; not based on first-hand knowledge; etc., etc.) are worth exactly nothing. This is a pattern that repeats itself nationwide and wherever our troops are in action. Something occurs involving American authorities. Immediately the usual suspects make the usual charges. An investigation occurs and in most cases the American authorities are found to have acted mostly or entirely reasonably. There are exceptions, to be sure, but this is what usually happens. And what else happens, in almost every case, is that those who hate the American authorities are shown to have been lying their faces off even in those cases when the authorities acted wrongly. There is no reason to think this case will necessarily turn out differently.
Do you really think that the police and FBI should be forbidden in all cases from conducting undercover domestic operations? Please tell me that you are not so insane!
Gun fire was exchanged? Wouldn't both parties need to fire their weapons, for that to be the proper terminology?
This comment is worthless garbage. You are trying to be reasonable but you are also being lazy and sloppy and just plain dumb. The deceased is not on trial, which is where the presumption of innocence comes into play. Your writing is poor, but you seem to be saying that the officers (who in fact are under investigation) are not entitled to the presumption of innocence because they are "agents of the state". This is retarded as a matter of law (of course they enjoy the same legal presumption as private citizens) but also is wildly impractical. Imagine trying to recruit officers while telling them that their every action would be reviewed under a presumption of guilt. Good luck filling those assignments!
poppycock. was this guy in fear for his life? were these officers advancing on his house with the intent on completing a violent crime? i am not all too familiar with this doctrine you speak of but i assume it is not carte blanche to shoot someone standing on your lawn.
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.