Ex-Florida officer expected in court for musician's slaying- Nouman Raja Corey Jones - Page 1

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ex-Florida officer expected in court for musician's slaying- Nouman Raja Corey Jones (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:28:52 AM EST

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - When Palm Beach Gardens police officer Nouman Raja pulled up to Corey Jones and his broken down SUV last fall, he didn't know Jones was on a recorded phone call with a tow truck operator.

Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg charged Raja with manslaughter and attempted murder Wednesday, saying his shooting of Jones, 31, last Oct. 18 was unjustified

Jones, who was black, and the operator had talked uneventfully for about two minutes when Raja, who is of South Asian descent, pulled up the ramp from the wrong direction and parked in front of Jones' SUV, according to charging documents. Raja, who was investigating a string of auto burglaries, was driving an unmarked cargo van with no police lights and was in civilian clothes: a tan T-shirt, jeans, sneakers and a baseball cap.

Raja's sergeant told investigators he had instructed Raja to wear his tactical vest that has police markings while on this assignment for his own safety and to identify himself, but it was found in Raja's van along with his police radio, the documents say. Raja, 38, had been a police officer for seven years, but only about six months with Palm Beach Gardens, a well-to-do suburb.

Raja told the 911 dispatcher that he had identified himself as a police officer and that he began firing as Jones came at him with a gun, prosecutors say. He said he continued firing because Jones was pointing his gun at him as he ran away.

When Raja's sergeant and other officers arrived, they found Jones' body between some trees almost 200 feet from the back of his SUV. A police dog found Jones' gun about 75 feet from his SUV, near where Raja told his sergeant he had seen Jones throw it. The safety was on and it had fired no shots.

Prosecutors say in their charging document that given the distance between the gun and Jones' body - and the heart wound that would have incapacitated him - they believe Raja fired the last three shots after he knew Jones had thrown down his gun and was running away.

http://www.wbrc.com/story/32119920/ex-florida-officer-expected-in-court-for-musicians-slaying

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:43:11 AM EST

[#1]

Original archived thread. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1799839__ARCHIVED_THREAD____UPDATES_IN_OP___OFFICER_FIRED___FL_Church_Drummer_Killed_by_Police_Officer.html&page=1

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:47:17 AM EST

[#2]

many believe the case is designed to fail

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:50:00 AM EST

[#3]

So the story tells us the race of the cop but not the victim ? nice job press your bias is showing

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:51:55 AM EST

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
many believe the case is designed to fail

View Quote

It appears this was a direct file of the charges and was not ran by a Grand Jury for an indictment.

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:52:54 AM EST

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
So the story tells us the race of the cop but not the victim ? nice job press your bias is showing

View Quote

it's irrelevant all around. Even the family has already said this is not a "black-white" thing.

The cop isn't really "white" anyway. He's more Asian than anything.

this isn't a race issue. This is a negligent cop shooting someone because of negligent acts. Bottom line.

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:53:53 AM EST

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

It appears this was a direct file of the charges and was not ran by a Grand Jury for an indictment.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
many believe the case is designed to fail

It appears this was a direct file of the charges and was not ran by a Grand Jury for an indictment.

Grand Jury was convened. But not for "charges"....just asked them whether or not the shooting was "justified".

The SAO himself came up with the charges based on the GJ saying unjustified.

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:54:51 AM EST

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

Grand Jury was convened. But not for "charges"....just asked them whether or not the shooting was "justified".

The SAO himself came up with the charges based on the GJ saying unjustified.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
many believe the case is designed to fail

It appears this was a direct file of the charges and was not ran by a Grand Jury for an indictment.

Grand Jury was convened. But not for "charges"....just asked them whether or not the shooting was "justified".

The SAO himself came up with the charges based on the GJ saying unjustified.

Interesting.

Posted: 6/2/2016 7:57:34 AM EST

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:

Interesting.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
many believe the case is designed to fail

It appears this was a direct file of the charges and was not ran by a Grand Jury for an indictment.

Grand Jury was convened. But not for "charges"....just asked them whether or not the shooting was "justified".

The SAO himself came up with the charges based on the GJ saying unjustified.

Interesting.

I say designed to fail because you have two charges....

One with the crux being "malice of forethought and intent to kill"......The other being based on "a complete fuck up and accident with no intent"

EDIT: He's either trying to have it both ways....or is intentionally making it impossible for the jury to figure out.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:00:15 AM EST

[#9]

Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:01:18 AM EST

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:

So the story tells us the race of the cop but not the victim ? nice job press your bias is showing

View Quote

It was in the story

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:03:55 AM EST

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

View Quote

He was a good kid. He was in the Church band.

He "fled" because he thought he was getting car jacked and was being shot.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:04:10 AM EST

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

I say designed to fail because you have two charges....

One with the crux being "malice of forethought and intent to kill"......The other being based on "a complete fuck up and accident with no intent"

EDIT: He's either trying to have it both ways....or is intentionally making it impossible for the jury to figure out.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Interesting.

I say designed to fail because you have two charges....

One with the crux being "malice of forethought and intent to kill"......The other being based on "a complete fuck up and accident with no intent"

EDIT: He's either trying to have it both ways....or is intentionally making it impossible for the jury to figure out.

Yeah I was wondering about that. It seems to me there is so much political pressure to charge cops with something these days they are just flinging charges in the hope one of them stick.

It also seems to me they are using what might be policy violations not actual criminal violations as the basis for filing charges..ie Baltimore.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:06:55 AM EST

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
So the story tells us the race of the cop but not the victim ? nice job press your bias is showing

View Quote

The vic's race is mentioned in the same sentence as the cop's...

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:06:57 AM EST

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

He was a good kid. He was in the Church band.

He "fled" because he thought he was getting car jacked and was being shot.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

He was a good kid. He was in the Church band.

He "fled" because he thought he was getting car jacked and was being shot.

Damn

Sounds like our officer completely dropped the ball

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:07:37 AM EST

[#15]

I agree with what Ranger556 is saying about the charges. Seems strange to have these two charges. If anything the ASA and defense would argue what lesser included charges to include with the verdict form at trial. We usually see the highest charge the state believes their case can support charged.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:08:37 AM EST

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

View Quote

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:08:42 AM EST

[#17]

... when Raja, who is of South Asian descent, pulled up the ramp from the wrong direction and parked in front of Jones' SUV, according to charging documents. Raja, who was investigating a string of auto burglaries, was driving an unmarked cargo van with no police lights and was in civilian clothes: a tan T-shirt, jeans, sneakers and a baseball cap.

View Quote

There's a recipe for success, right there.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:12:59 AM EST

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

You have one guy with a gun looking for other guys with guns he finds one, you have a guy with a gun who is afraid of guys with guns and he finds one.

Then one ends up dead.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:13:36 AM EST

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
There's a recipe for success, right there.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

... when Raja, who is of South Asian descent, pulled up the ramp from the wrong direction and parked in front of Jones' SUV, according to charging documents. Raja, who was investigating a string of auto burglaries, was driving an unmarked cargo van with no police lights and was in civilian clothes: a tan T-shirt, jeans, sneakers and a baseball cap.

There's a recipe for success, right there.

It gets worse than that. When OnStar audio is quoted in the arrest warrant application its going to be bad.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:19:09 AM EST

[#20]

"N-na-n-naga-nag-na gonna be a cop in this town ever again anyway"

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:36:50 AM EST

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

You have one guy with a gun looking for other guys with guns he finds one, you have a guy with a gun who is afraid of guys with guns and he finds one.

Then one ends up dead.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

You have one guy with a gun looking for other guys with guns he finds one, you have a guy with a gun who is afraid of guys with guns and he finds one.

Then one ends up dead.

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:39:49 AM EST

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

You have one guy with a gun looking for other guys with guns he finds one, you have a guy with a gun who is afraid of guys with guns and he finds one.

Then one ends up dead.

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

Hang him.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:45:08 AM EST

[#23]

Quote History

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

View Quote

That sounds like a robbery taking place, not an officer making an arrest.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:46:34 AM EST

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

You have one guy with a gun looking for other guys with guns he finds one, you have a guy with a gun who is afraid of guys with guns and he finds one.

Then one ends up dead.

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

Is that the initial contact quote from OnStar?
Just from reading that it doesn't sound good to me.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:47:50 AM EST

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

You have one guy with a gun looking for other guys with guns he finds one, you have a guy with a gun who is afraid of guys with guns and he finds one.

Then one ends up dead.

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

No doubts. Very bad handling of the situation by the officer. But that goes back to bad tactics and possible policy violations. Not violations of the law.

I think they are going to have a very hard case in this one though.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:49:07 AM EST

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:

That sounds like a robbery taking place, not an officer making an arrest.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

That sounds like a robbery taking place, not an officer making an arrest.

I was wondering what the audio would reveal and now that I can read it, the officer failed on multiple levels. He's gonna reap what he sowed.

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:51:23 AM EST

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

That sounds like a robbery taking place, not an officer making an arrest.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

That sounds like a robbery taking place, not an officer making an arrest.

Yep, cop was a dumbass

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:56:37 AM EST

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:

Is that the initial contact quote from OnStar?
Just from reading that it doesn't sound good to me.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did the victim have a criminal history? Sounds like he was armed and fled. Did the officer ever ID himself? Can't get the link to work on my phone, trying to learn more about this one

As far as I have read, a good guy was killed by someone who looked like a bad guy approached.

You have one guy with a gun looking for other guys with guns he finds one, you have a guy with a gun who is afraid of guys with guns and he finds one.

Then one ends up dead.

The officer made several mistakes according to the investigation by the SA's Office.

Unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment, failing to wear his TAC vest as instructed by his supervisor, no badge hanging from his neck or any police identification anywhere else on his body. He made no verbal identification of who he was to Jones. That On Star audio

Corey Jones: “Huh?”
Nouman Raja: “You Good?”
Jones: “I’m Good”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah, I’m good.”
Raja: “Really?”
Jones: “Yeah”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Get your f*cking hands up!”
Jones: “Hold on!”
Raja: “Get your f*cking hands up! Drop!”

Then 3 shots were fired and ten seconds later another 3 shots were fired.

Raja pretty much did everything that most cops are taught not to do when initiating contact.

Is that the initial contact quote from OnStar?
Just from reading that it doesn't sound good to me.

Here's a link to the SAO release on the charges and the copy of the arrest warrant application. It's one of the more detailed warrant applications that I have seen.

http://media2.wptv.com/documents/rajapc.pdf?_ga=1.105299267.155262371.1444405114

Posted: 6/2/2016 8:59:15 AM EST

[#29]

I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:00:46 AM EST

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:

Here's a link to the SAO release on the charges and a summary of their investigation.

http://media2.wptv.com/documents/rajapc.pdf?_ga=1.105299267.155262371.1444405114

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Snip
Thanks. Off to do some reading

Here's a link to the SAO release on the charges and a summary of their investigation.

http://media2.wptv.com/documents/rajapc.pdf?_ga=1.105299267.155262371.1444405114

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:06:51 AM EST

[#31]

Manslaughter and attempted murder..... Seems like it was more than an attempt. The guy is dead.

Makes me question the charges based solely off of that.

The documents cover some good details. Claiming the guy threw the gun, but then kept firing when the guy was further away?

Cop never identifying himself either?

Sounds like he is done.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:06:57 AM EST

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

View Quote

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:16:02 AM EST

[#33]

Just finished reading the PC affidavit.

I can see why they did the two charges.

He may not have had "malice of forethought" prior to the stop....but he sure as hell tried to cover up his actions afterwards with the phony 911 statements of "drop that gun" and such.

Malice=intent.

Throw his ass in prison.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:18:36 AM EST

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?
I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?
I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

Part in red....I agree and have said so since last year.

Raja was in fact "in fear for his life". That's not up for debate IMHO.

However, what put him in that position to be "in fear for his life" was through his own GROSS negligence.

Also, after he fucked up, and then realized he fucked up....comes the "malice" of thought. Trying to cover shit up with that bullshit 911 call.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:31:51 AM EST

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

Valid points, and to spit ball back to you, broke down motorist in an area where car burglaries are occurring early in the morning. The motorist has told friends prior to the shooting, when he broke down, he was staying with his car and his drums because he was afraid that they might get stolen. An unknown subject makes a head on approach in a vehicle, jumps out and makes those statements that are recorded by On Star.

If you had a gun at that point would you be trying to access it? I would.

Some selected Florida Statute on Use of Force:

776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

There is strong argument that the officer failed to comply with the protection offered by this statute.

776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The deceased was in a broke down vehicle with a person that anyone of us in his situation would probably also agree that we were in fear of being the victim of a robbery. Again the officers actions contributed to this type of scenario.

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

The officer actions versus the decedent's action given what was known to the deceased at the time?

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Was the deceased afforded this right based only on the officers contact and lack of knowledge of the officers status and duties, based on the officer's own failure to conduct his contact in a manner that identifies the officers lawful duties and his status as a LEO acting in his official capacity?

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:34:59 AM EST

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

To me it boils down to whether he was readily identified as a police officer at the time of the stop. I know when I've worked plain clothes details I've had to do some serious explaining before someone would take my word for it. Being in uniform tends to make us a wee bit lazy.

I once worked a detail where we were hanging out in a relatively nice neighborhood in an old Ford Econoline conversion van. There were three of us sitting in the back smoking cigarettes, using binoculars, and holding short barreled shotguns in our laps. We were waiting for someone's shit bird armed robber son to return home to mommy. One of the neighbors took exception to our rather sketchy appearance and nearly blew it for us. And I didn't blame him a bit because we didn't look like cops at the time, our mistake. We wound up having to ditch the van and the neighbor volunteered to let us hang in his garage which was a much better setup. Our initial conversation was a wee bit intense until things found a natural and polite level.

After that when we used plain clothes for surveillance we kept a couple of readily identifiable real cops on hand to handle the arrest phase. The guys in plain clothes carried a weapon for self defense but weren't supposed to jump on the piggie pile unless it was absolutely necessary.

Sounds like our hero in Florida was working out of uniform, all alone, and without some basic communication skills. In his mind he was probably quite comfortable with the shooting. Graham V Connor is a bit of a bitch in that it is being used to cut both ways in some department. It's safer to comply with "best industry practices" and all that BS. We're given terms like "objectionally reasonable" and expected to comply with a nebulous ruling that leaves me with more questions than answers.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:41:49 AM EST

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

Part in red....I agree and have said so since last year.

Raja was in fact "in fear for his life". That's not up for debate IMHO.

However, what put him in that position to be "in fear for his life" was through his own GROSS negligence.

Also, after he fucked up, and then realized he fucked up....comes the "malice" of thought. Trying to cover shit up with that bullshit 911 call.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?
I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

Part in red....I agree and have said so since last year.

Raja was in fact "in fear for his life". That's not up for debate IMHO.

However, what put him in that position to be "in fear for his life" was through his own GROSS negligence.

Also, after he fucked up, and then realized he fucked up....comes the "malice" of thought. Trying to cover shit up with that bullshit 911 call.

Wouldn't that be more of a tampering with evidence charge?

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:41:56 AM EST

[#38]

Just read the link provide by floridacop
This guy should be done for

ETA:Is Raja report of this online?
Did he say in his report that he identified?
Did he radio dispatch that he was going to be out with someone and location??

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:49:12 AM EST

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
Just read the link provide by floridacop
This guy should be done for

ETA:Is Raja report of this online?
Did he say in his report that he identified?
Did he radio dispatch that he was going to be out with someone and location??

View Quote

Down here, when you shoot someone you don't do a "report"

Homicide investigators do. At best, you may possibly make a statement with your lawyer.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:50:39 AM EST

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:

Wouldn't that be more of a tampering with evidence charge?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?
I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

Part in red....I agree and have said so since last year.

Raja was in fact "in fear for his life". That's not up for debate IMHO.

However, what put him in that position to be "in fear for his life" was through his own GROSS negligence.

Also, after he fucked up, and then realized he fucked up....comes the "malice" of thought. Trying to cover shit up with that bullshit 911 call.

Wouldn't that be more of a tampering with evidence charge?

His actions put the other party in reasonable fear of their life, and they were actions he was specifically ordered not to because they are known to do just that.

Hes either retarded, or intentionally provoking confrontation. His criminal actions afterwards point towards the latter being the cause.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:54:17 AM EST

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:

Down here, when you shoot someone you don't do a "report"

Homicide investigators do. At best, you may possibly make a statement with your lawyer.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Just read the link provide by floridacop
This guy should be done for

ETA:Is Raja report of this online?
Did he say in his report that he identified?
Did he radio dispatch that he was going to be out with someone and location??

Down here, when you shoot someone you don't do a "report"

Homicide investigators do. At best, you may possibly make a statement with your lawyer.

Duuh you're right. I got report on the brain from reading that other thread about reports/incidents.
I meaning to say was it mentioned in any other reports or statements

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:54:35 AM EST

[#42]

Let's say Corey Jones fires at Nouman Raja and kills him, because he feels his life is threatened. Nouman never identified himself as a police officer. It would be justified, I wonder how the jury would see it ?

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:54:45 AM EST

[#43]

No, it was the former

Don't get hung up on the "7 1/2 year veteran"

He was with Atlantis PD for those 7 years. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's like having 7 years experience as an armed Mall guard.

He had little, if any, real world police experience. Doing a job that should be reserved for level headed experienced veterans.

His screw ups were on an epic level of "don't ever do that shit".

In fact, I can't point to anything he did right.

Posted: 6/2/2016 9:55:44 AM EST

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:
Let's say Corey Jones fires at Nouman Raja and kills him, because he feels his life is threatened. Nouman never identified himself as a police officer. It would be justified, I wonder how the jury would see it ?

View Quote

Yes, all the physical evidence was there to support it.

However, without the on star recording it would have been an uphill battle.

Posted: 6/2/2016 10:01:11 AM EST

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yes, all the physical evidence was there to support it.

However, without the on star recording it would have been an uphill battle.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Let's say Corey Jones fires at Nouman Raja and kills him, because he feels his life is threatened. Nouman never identified himself as a police officer. It would be justified, I wonder how the jury would see it ?

Yes, all the physical evidence was there to support it.

However, without the on star recording it would have been an uphill battle.

AT&T roadside

I have that service and as long as it took them to answer. I may consider dropping it

Sounds like Raja screwed up to me.
Went down the ramp the wrong way in an unmarked,
Sgt told him to wear his vest so he would be identified, No visible markings on him, guessing he didn't check out with dispatch, portable left in vehicle with duty gun.
Recording doesn't have him identifying. Shooting after the gun was tossed.
I think he's going to get it by a FL jury

Posted: 6/2/2016 10:04:22 AM EST

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
"N-na-n-naga-nag-na gonna be a cop in this town ever again anyway"

View Quote

Posted: 6/2/2016 10:08:43 AM EST

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

If he never IDd as a LEO, which it sounds like he didn't, and the first guy drew his gun in a defensive manner then yes, I could convict him if I was on the jury. His own stupid actions caused him to have to kill the drummer

Posted: 6/2/2016 10:17:48 AM EST

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:

Valid points, and to spit ball back to you, broke down motorist in an area where car burglaries are occurring early in the morning. The motorist has told friends prior to the shooting, when he broke down, he was staying with his car and his drums because he was afraid that they might get stolen. An unknown subject makes a head on approach in a vehicle, jumps out and makes those statements that are recorded by On Star.

If you had a gun at that point would you be trying to access it? I would.

Some selected Florida Statute on Use of Force:

776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

There is strong argument that the officer failed to comply with the protection offered by this statute.

776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The deceased was in a broke down vehicle with a person that anyone of us in his situation would probably also agree that we were in fear of being the victim of a robbery. Again the officers actions contributed to this type of scenario.

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

The officer actions versus the decedent's action given what was known to the deceased at the time?

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Was the deceased afforded this right based only on the officers contact and lack of knowledge of the officers status and duties, based on the officer's own failure to conduct his contact in a manner that identifies the officers lawful duties and his status as a LEO acting in his official capacity?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

Valid points, and to spit ball back to you, broke down motorist in an area where car burglaries are occurring early in the morning. The motorist has told friends prior to the shooting, when he broke down, he was staying with his car and his drums because he was afraid that they might get stolen. An unknown subject makes a head on approach in a vehicle, jumps out and makes those statements that are recorded by On Star.

If you had a gun at that point would you be trying to access it? I would.

Some selected Florida Statute on Use of Force:

776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

There is strong argument that the officer failed to comply with the protection offered by this statute.

776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The deceased was in a broke down vehicle with a person that anyone of us in his situation would probably also agree that we were in fear of being the victim of a robbery. Again the officers actions contributed to this type of scenario.

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

The officer actions versus the decedent's action given what was known to the deceased at the time?

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Was the deceased afforded this right based only on the officers contact and lack of knowledge of the officers status and duties, based on the officer's own failure to conduct his contact in a manner that identifies the officers lawful duties and his status as a LEO acting in his official capacity?

Red part. Oh yes, I would be going for a defensive position, clearing my shirt and putting my hand on the Glock.

Posted: 6/2/2016 10:18:47 AM EST

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
To me it boils down to whether he was readily identified as a police officer at the time of the stop. I know when I've worked plain clothes details I've had to do some serious explaining before someone would take my word for it. Being in uniform tends to make us a wee bit lazy.

I once worked a detail where we were hanging out in a relatively nice neighborhood in an old Ford Econoline conversion van. There were three of us sitting in the back smoking cigarettes, using binoculars, and holding short barreled shotguns in our laps. We were waiting for someone's shit bird armed robber son to return home to mommy. One of the neighbors took exception to our rather sketchy appearance and nearly blew it for us. And I didn't blame him a bit because we didn't look like cops at the time, our mistake. We wound up having to ditch the van and the neighbor volunteered to let us hang in his garage which was a much better setup. Our initial conversation was a wee bit intense until things found a natural and polite level.

After that when we used plain clothes for surveillance we kept a couple of readily identifiable real cops on hand to handle the arrest phase. The guys in plain clothes carried a weapon for self defense but weren't supposed to jump on the piggie pile unless it was absolutely necessary.

Sounds like our hero in Florida was working out of uniform, all alone, and without some basic communication skills. In his mind he was probably quite comfortable with the shooting. Graham V Connor is a bit of a bitch in that it is being used to cut both ways in some department. It's safer to comply with "best industry practices" and all that BS. We're given terms like "objectionally reasonable" and expected to comply with a nebulous ruling that leaves me with more questions than answers.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence.

That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter.

Just spitballing this.

You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road.

You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns.

The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact.

Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys.

One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead.

Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation?

I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did.

To me it boils down to whether he was readily identified as a police officer at the time of the stop. I know when I've worked plain clothes details I've had to do some serious explaining before someone would take my word for it. Being in uniform tends to make us a wee bit lazy.

I once worked a detail where we were hanging out in a relatively nice neighborhood in an old Ford Econoline conversion van. There were three of us sitting in the back smoking cigarettes, using binoculars, and holding short barreled shotguns in our laps. We were waiting for someone's shit bird armed robber son to return home to mommy. One of the neighbors took exception to our rather sketchy appearance and nearly blew it for us. And I didn't blame him a bit because we didn't look like cops at the time, our mistake. We wound up having to ditch the van and the neighbor volunteered to let us hang in his garage which was a much better setup. Our initial conversation was a wee bit intense until things found a natural and polite level.

After that when we used plain clothes for surveillance we kept a couple of readily identifiable real cops on hand to handle the arrest phase. The guys in plain clothes carried a weapon for self defense but weren't supposed to jump on the piggie pile unless it was absolutely necessary.

Sounds like our hero in Florida was working out of uniform, all alone, and without some basic communication skills. In his mind he was probably quite comfortable with the shooting. Graham V Connor is a bit of a bitch in that it is being used to cut both ways in some department. It's safer to comply with "best industry practices" and all that BS. We're given terms like "objectionally reasonable" and expected to comply with a nebulous ruling that leaves me with more questions than answers.

Working in plain clothes is always an issue.

Posted: 6/2/2016 10:20:04 AM EST

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:

His actions put the other party in reasonable fear of their life, and they were actions he was specifically ordered not to because they are known to do just that.

Hes either retarded, or intentionally provoking confrontation. His criminal actions afterwards point towards the latter being the cause.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wouldn't that be more of a tampering with evidence charge?

His actions put the other party in reasonable fear of their life, and they were actions he was specifically ordered not to because they are known to do just that.

Hes either retarded, or intentionally provoking confrontation. His criminal actions afterwards point towards the latter being the cause.

I don't disagree. But again he could legally be where he was at.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ex-Florida officer expected in court for musician's slaying- Nouman Raja Corey Jones (Page 1 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us