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.
Well, supposedly at least one of the cops was hiding behind a tree.
Is I saw somebody on my property hiding behind a tree, I would be quite concerned, especially if I was 81. Maybe you've heard of home invasions, especially in drug neighborhoods?
Any time someone pulls out a gun they must do so with the thought that a situation could be violent and someone, including themself, might get shot.
The cops weren't arresting anyone. They were working undercover. If they were on this man's property without his permission and without a court order, then they were intruders, and from what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), homeowners have the right to shoot intruders under Florida law.
I thought it pretty funny and humor is the best weapon against pompous windbag types. The respect I once had for the cops was replaced with a healthy fear due to observation and experience.
"Protect and Serve".....ROFLMAO
Hey, is that a scuff on your jack boots?
I miss 'peace officers'. 'Law enforcement' is an unacceptable replacement, IMHO.
"No situation is so bad that it cannot be made worse by the presence of a policeman"
According to police, the officers had been in the neighborhood since about 2:45 p.m., and had made five drug-related arrests.
From this story you don't know many things. Was this a street with houses? Apartment complexes? Were they on the property or nearby? We have no basis to know if the nephew saw the event or related stuff he heard etc..
All that said, if the man came out and told the police to GET OFF HIS PROPERTY and they didn't then the cops are liable here. They can tell him to put down his gun but without proper ID then why should he?
This story lacks certain facts.
Yes, yes and the old guy did fire at the officers.
Sounds like one of those Neighborhood Watch types with a Charles Bronson fetish. Good riddance.
In spite of all of the nonsense on the earlier part of the thread, still I felt that the "libertarian" retards were not truly stepping up to the plate. No longer. Excelsior!
I would have to consider the facts but if he's out there waving a gun then he would have had to assume some risk for his behaviour.
.....
Yes , but he thought he was confronting street thugs ... not state thugs ... one is more apt to open fire then the other.
Ordinary street thugs would have moved on down the block a bit ... shooting grandpas is bad for bis don'tcha ya know.
On the other hand a good shoot can get a state thug a paid vacation.
Sad times.
Then butt out until you are.
Are you unfamiliar with the term "State Attorney?"
The man was in is own yard, not the street, but his own land. Maybe you've never had to defend your own property against those you perceive as thugs, maybe when confronted you'll surrender your property without a struggle, and maybe if you try exercising and defending your Fourth Amendment right of being secure in your house/property someone would think before employing that "good riddance" technique.
"Pops says whatever you do out in the street or over on the side of the fence, that is your business, but you're not going to bring it in this yard."
Ahhhh; that's the kind of flourish that has made FR what it is today. Did you cut your rhetorical teeth behind the fence debating umpires?
The deceased is not on trial, which is where the presumption of innocence comes into play.
I'm not the one who put him on trial: you are. Remember?
You do not have sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the force was excessive or that the citizen was innocent.
...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!
It's not my problem if your understanding of legal nuance is on par with a preschool appreciation of algebra. The culpability of state agencies as opposed to their officials is well recognized by most functionally literate Americans.
was he within his rights to use deadly force (point a gun at them)"
"Pointing" a gun at someone is not deadly force.
Okay, I've thought carefully.
Nope, still believe that cops should be readily identifiable as such by every sighted person. Also, they should revert to peace officer status and function.
Reminds one of a teenage girl that wasn't allowed to get a tattoo, doesn't he?
"Hey, if incidents like these prevent just one American adult from smoking a joint, it's worth it. We need paramilitary raids in our communities to keep us safe."
Spot on comment! Thanks.
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.