FL cops shoot unarmed 60yo- 'feared for their safety'

[zibazinski]

No kidding about hitting a moving target. We practice outdoors with moving targets and I'm lucky if I get one solid shot in, the rest are in the general vicinity!

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm just surprised they didn't eventually give up and throw their guns at the guy.

[EVT1]

Jul 30, 2013 13:05:13 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I wonder if the cruiser's dash cam was on?

Probably not- usually isn't when it comes to conflicting stories.

     Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan claimed his deputies repeatedly ordered Middleton to show his hands, but that he spun toward them and caused them to "fear for their safety." Middleton claims he turned around with his hands raised in the air, a claim corroborated by a witness who wished to remain anonymous.

Spun towards- that is just as bad as seeing a weapon I guess

     Frank Middleton, Roy's 66-year-old brother, told the News Journal that he doesn't know what to make of the shooting.

     "I'm not mad, but more disappointed in the system and in the training," Frank Middleton continued, adding that his own son is a Pensacola police officer. "They need training." 

I agree- they need to learn when to shoot and how to shoot apparently- 17 and a leg?  Lucky guy.



    

[djAdvocate]

just wait.  SYG is going down.  and not in a blaze of glory.

[zibazinski]

Never.

[EVT1]

I think it will- as soon as the dipshits that passed it realize that criminals are generally the only ones gaining any benefit from it.

That's what happens when you pass a law just to be a dick and screw with the opposition.  Lot of that going on these days.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2013 21:07:25 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Never.

it is going to start getting challenged immediately, zib.  i am betting it won't survive that challenge.  but i am not going to bother expressing why against a one word reply.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2013 21:58:51 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I think it will- as soon as the dipshits that passed it realize that criminals are generally the only ones gaining any benefit from it.

That's what happens when you pass a law just to be a dick and screw with the opposition.  Lot of that going on these days.

this bill was crafted and promoted by the NRA.  it is not wise, as the term is understood.  now, you could say that wisdom is not the driving force in a Republic, but i think that ultimately it IS.

it does, however, assure the sale of a HELL of a lot of weapons.

[EVT1]

That was the idea- if your position is to sell more guns then what is the best strategy?

Push for expanded gun laws, expanded access, expanded rights- and couple it with a good dose of fear.

There are bills out there set to eliminate background checks, eliminate carry permits.  Stupid ones are already on the books- NC being the latest to allow people to carry into bars (as long as they do not drink ).

The freaking worst idea was CO- where the plan was to mandate any business open to the public to allow gun toters on the premises- and if they did not they had to hire private armed security- the teeth in the law being if there was violence on the premises the company would be liable for everything if they did not comply.  Logic being said violence could have been prevented by someone with a gun.  And talk about freedom.

Naturally some kind of lawsuit protection from scared shooters will have to be on the books there as it is in FL-  aka no matter how fucking stupid you are you cannot be sued for killing someone you were 'scared' of.  ALA- SYG!

[EVT1]

There was this article today about snipers that made me kind of ill- not about the snipers themselves or their jobs- but the people that 'dig' their kill numbers.  We have some really sick people in this country.

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/25/19679964-confirmed-kills-a-solemn-secret-for-military-snipers-is-becoming-a-pop-culture-hit?lite

[zibazinski]

People knew that in the early seventies. No big surprise there. You had to take an ear to prove it.
no one and I tell you that, no one will ever take my gun away from me. You can pass all kinds of BS laws you want. Just isn't happening. Govt using tax dollars to buy up ammo so people can't? Just made for an underground market like prohibition.

[billisonboard]

Jul 31, 2013 7:27:41 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

...
no one and I tell you that, no one will ever take my gun away from me. ...

No one is talking about taking your legally obtained and registered gun away from you, at least until you join the club.

[resolution]

This was what the 60 year old had to say about what happened.  www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-at-man-in-his-yard

Middleton, 60, of the 200 block of Shadow Lawn Lane in Warrington, was shot in the leg about 2:42 a.m. Saturday while trying to retrieve a cigarette from his mother’s car in the driveway of their home.

A neighbor saw someone reaching into the car and called 911. While he was looking into the vehicle, deputies arrived in response to the burglary call.

Middleton said he was bent over in the car searching the interior for a loose cigarette when he heard a voice order him to, “Get your hands where I can see them.”

He said he initially thought it was a neighbor joking with him, but when he turned his head he saw deputies standing halfway down his driveway.

He said he backed out of the vehicle with his hands raised, but when he turned to face the deputies, they immediately opened fire.

“It was like a firing squad,” he said. “Bullets were flying everywhere.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 30, 2013 1:53:34 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Is this a new trend in FL or what? 

www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Deputies-Shot-and-Wound-Unarmed-Man-in-His-Driveway-217496941.html

     Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan said Monday that the deputies responded to a 911 call about a possible burglary early Saturday and found 60-year-old Roy Middleton searching through the car.

     The deputies reported they told Middleton to show his hands multiple times, but he lunged out of the car and spun toward them. Morgan said the deputies feared for their safety and opened fire


Even GZ had a better story than that.  At least he will live to sue.

I agree that it was probably unnecessary to use force in this case, and I highly doubt the police officer's story.  Guess we'll see how it shakes out...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 30, 2013 15:22:55 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

No kidding about hitting a moving target. We practice outdoors with moving targets and I'm lucky if I get one solid shot in, the rest are in the general vicinity!

I'm getting better on the tactical range.  I do have a nasty habit of shooting unarmed civilians, though. 

[workpublic]

i learned how to shoot from dick cheney. whoops, sorry.

[zibazinski]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 30, 2013 19:09:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

just wait.  SYG is going down.  and not in a blaze of glory.

SYG is here to stay.  It is not the first of its kind law- in Texas you can use deadly force to protect property.  Someone running out the door with your safe, and you don't think you'll ever see it again if you don't stop them, and you think it's too risky to run them down- you can shoot them.  Even in the back.  

So, the way I see it- Florida has some learnin' to do from our neighbor to the West.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 15, 2013 15:11:09 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Aug 15, 2013 12:54:05 GMT -5 workpublic said:

i learned how to shoot from dick cheney. whoops, sorry.

It does help to have friends in high places.

Guys who shoot someone while hunting up here often go to jail for a while.

You can go to jail for hunting accidents down here, too.  "Accidental" shootings can be charged as a crime.  I was reading in a Florida hunting publication about a case where criminally negligent homicide was charged in a case where a man shot his brother while hunting some animal or other.  Fish and Game- who are like supercops down here- they have jurisdiction throughout the state, and their jurisdiction supersedes even the State Police- filed charges.  The officer quoted said something to the effect of where firearms are involved, safety is paramount and in his view, there is simply no such thing as an 'accident' with a firearm.  Carelessness with a firearm is negligence, and negligence that any reasonable person knows could kill someone-- is a crime in Florida.

[EVT1]

Aug 15, 2013 21:43:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 30, 2013 19:09:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

just wait.  SYG is going down.  and not in a blaze of glory.

SYG is here to stay.  It is not the first of its kind law- in Texas you can use deadly force to protect property.  Someone running out the door with your safe, and you don't think you'll ever see it again if you don't stop them, and you think it's too risky to run them down- you can shoot them.  Even in the back.  

So, the way I see it- Florida has some learnin' to do from our neighbor to the West.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

So you support murdering people over property.      What an immoral law- but no surprise in TX. I could give a shit what the law calls justified- anyone that kills someone (Like the Joe Horn case) that way is a murdering scumbag.  I don't recall an asterisk next to Thou Shall Not Kill* (*unless they have your TV)

Even the SCOTUS said a long time ago life is more important than property-and held police cannot shoot fleeing suspects unless there is a danger to life/serious bodily harm- but I guess the legislature feels it is OK for citizens.  Immoral.  Wrong.  I can't believe how anyone at all can support this kind of nonsense.

It will go away, and SYG will go away.  The public will catch on- once they are sick of gang bangers and real thugs avoiding prison because of SYG they will tell the NRA and their ilk to eat shit and repeal it.

But go on record here PBP- you think it is ok to shoot someone in the back running away with your weed wacker or other items they may have stole from your shed?  Could you pull the trigger? Are you a cold blooded killer like Joe Horn?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Arizona used to have a pretty similar law, not sure if it's still on the books though.  I know because I had a friend that worked at a gas station/convenience store.  The owners bought handguns and had all the employees wear them on the night shift.  They told them if a robber came in to cooperate and give them the money, but it was completely legal to shoot them in the back on their way out the door.  You were legal until they left the property, which extended to the edge of the parking lot.  They did this after a couple robberies in a couple year period.

My friend was 18 at the time, and I'm not even sure if he knew how to shoot, but he did think it was pretty cool that he got to wear a gun at work.

[zibazinski]

Good luck with getting SYG repealed. Not going to happen-ever.    Even if by some miracle it did, people who own weapons are still going to shoot to protect themselves and their property and to answer your question, YES, I would shoot someone trying to steal my property. In a New York minute. 

[Opti]

Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan claimed his deputies repeatedly ordered Middleton to show his hands, but that he spun toward them and caused them to "fear for their safety." Middleton claims he turned around with his hands raised in the air, a claim corroborated by a witness who wished to remain anonymous.

Glad we are getting more details of the story. If he did indeed back out with hands up I'm glad he only got hit in the leg. I don't know if it was ever posted here or I could find it, but there was a study that said people in general were more likely to assume a black man was armed. If they were white for example they were more likely to see they were holding a cellphone but if they were black they were more likely to assume it was a gun.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I absolutely support shooting people to prevent being held hostage and put to slave labor. If I have a car- which I do, and I put $5,000 down on it- which I did, and I have made give or take a nickel- $4,300 something in payments over the last 14 months and I make the median wage- which thankfully, I don't- and someone steals that car, they're taking roughly a third of a year of my life. Do I have insurance? Yes, but my rates are going up- and no, I don't pay for the full replacement coverage where I get a new car- which I'd want after some asshole has been in my car doing who knows what. Then there's all the tools and equipment in my car which are not insured because they're worth a bit, but below my business property deductible.

I know you don't understand that it's not just property- it's my time. It's the stuff of life. Everything I put into what I own- all my time, talent, and treasure being harnessed by someone else? Sorry, the only people that get away with that are government agents, and that's only because I feel I'm out-gunned. Everyone else is going to eat it for even trying.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Theft is not something I take lightly. We used to hang people for stealing horses- and again, I know you don't get it because it's just property, but property is as sacred as a person's life because it IS their life. It represents a portion of their life. We all give up something for everything we own. Some things- like family heirlooms can never be replaced. Come into my house, or try to rob me- you will die if I can manage to kill you.

[EVT1]

So that is two people here that will kill over property.  I really thought you were better than that.

It's time and money- cry me a freaking river.  You can't take it with you- and you will be just as dead as the thief one day and according to you will stand judged- love to see you try and explain your way out of murdering a thief.  A human life for some junk.  That's what it boils down to isn't it- human life just isn't worth that much to either of you.  Disgusting.  Bet you cheered during the primary when they asked if people that don't by health insurance should be allowed to die- and yes was the answer.

And please Zib- why do you support a law that frees criminals so much?  You do realize that the actual law abiding citizens acting in self defense do not need it right?  Have never needed it. So is that what you are smiling about- the local gang banger avoiding jail after a street shootout?  I get your attitude but you could at least support a law that has a better goal than making it hard to put away the bad people- specifically violent offenders.

[EVT1]

Aug 16, 2013 11:28:59 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

"I know you don't get it because it's just property, but property is as sacred as a person's life"


Just wanted to highlight that again.  Seriously I have lost any respect for you or Zib as a human being.  Difference of opinions are fine about politics and what not but to have such a core belief that goes against any amount of decency is offensive to me.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 13:51:43 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

17 shots and they hit him once in the leg

That's when they stopped shooting. When he cried out "I'm shot, I'm shot" !

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2013 11:28:59 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Theft is not something I take lightly. We used to hang people for stealing horses- and again, I know you don't get it because it's just property, but property is as sacred as a person's life because it IS their life. It represents a portion of their life. We all give up something for everything we own. Some things- like family heirlooms can never be replaced. Come into my house, or try to rob me- you will die if I can manage to kill you.

Here in rural AR it's standard procedure. Break into someones house when they're home, don't expect to live through it.

[Sum Dum Gai]

So that is two people here that will kill over property.

Who's the second one?  I missed that.