AFSOC SMA killed by police in home

[Smokin]

Problem is after that Ferguson "hands up don't shoot" incident, I would imagine the overall quality of police recruits had to have dropped.  The job never paid that great, much of the public hates you just because, and even if you do everything right you still run the risk of pilloried and left to hang by political prosecutors looking to make a name for themselves or to appease the mob.  Throw in a higher turnover rate and being undermanned, under trained, and under funded and it is honestly surprising things like this are not happening more often.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, arg said:

Years ago the OCSO let high school kids, including girls, do ride alongs on the night shift. Guess what happened? And not just one deputy.

This is going to happen in every job, everywhere, forever. Especially with men their early and mid twenties, but by no means limited to it. We will always fight it, and most of us will behave, but biologically adult women (post-pubescence) are always going to get biologically adult men to act in accordance with a few million years of biological pressures.

[ClearedHot]

[flyusaf83]

I did not appreciate the tone of the Sheriff’s press conference, when he basically justified the murder before showing the video.  Pointing out with emphasis the lame excuses that will be given for the ridiculous choice to unload your gun into someone who is no threat, in their own home.

 

Just say you are sorry, that you feel horrible for the family of the victim, that you fully support murder charges, and that you are resigning because your department is full of trigger-happy douche-canoes.

[fire4effect]

On 5/11/2024 at 3:21 PM, Lord Ratner said:

This is going to happen in every job, everywhere, forever. Especially with men their early and mid twenties, but by no means limited to it. We will always fight it, and most of us will behave, but biologically adult women (post-pubescence) are always going to get biologically adult men to act in accordance with a few million years of biological pressures.

"A man is as faithful as his options" Chris Rock

[Springer]

On 5/15/2024 at 12:38 AM, flyusaf83 said:

I did not appreciate the tone of the Sheriff’s press conference, when he basically justified the murder before showing the video.  Pointing out with emphasis the lame excuses that will be given for the ridiculous choice to unload your gun into someone who is no threat, in their own home.

 

Just say you are sorry, that you feel horrible for the family of the victim, that you fully support murder charges, and that you are resigning because your department is full of trigger-happy douche-canoes.

The Sheriff sets the tone for his department.  In incidents like this, he should be the first to go.  Not unlike in the military, seems at every base I was at when there was an accident, the sq/cc or wg/cc was replaced.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Springer said:

The Sheriff sets the tone for his department.  In incidents like this, he should be the first to go.  Not unlike in the military, seems at every base I was at when there was an accident, the sq/cc or wg/cc was replaced.

The Sheriff is elected, where’s as a military leader is not.  So it’s very unlike the military.

[M2]

On 5/15/2024 at 12:38 AM, flyusaf83 said:

I did not appreciate the tone of the Sheriff’s press conference, when he basically justified the murder before showing the video.  Pointing out with emphasis the lame excuses that will be given for the ridiculous choice to unload your gun into someone who is no threat, in their own home.

Just say you are sorry, that you feel horrible for the family of the victim, that you fully support murder charges, and that you are resigning because your department is full of trigger-happy douche-canoes.

I get your point, but you're recommending basically succumbing to an admission of guilt before the investigation is complete.  Not saying he was correct in his statements, but you're rushing to judgment.

Due process is still necessary no matter how much "evidence" is presented on social media.

Anyone in the military who has been subjected to the "guilty until proven innocent" approach should be very cognitive of that. 

There's always more to the story...and a process to uncover the truth!

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, M2 said:

I get your point, but you're recommending basically succumbing to an admission of guilt before the investigation is complete.  Not saying he was correct in his statements, but you're rushing to judgment.

Due process is still necessary no matter how much "evidence" is presented on social media.

Anyone in the military who has been subjected to the "guilty until proven innocent" approach should be very cognitive of that.

Rushing to judgement goes BOTH ways.  How in the world can you say @flyusaf83 is rushing to judgement without saying the Police Chief is rushing to judgement as well? 

I hear what you are saying and fully support the approach of due process, the problem is that in 99% of all cases of suggested police misconduct the first reaction of leadership is to defend the officer's actions and that is just as bad.

The Police Chief should not succumb to an admission of guilt NOR should he auto-default to justifying the officers actions. 

1 hour ago, M2 said:

There's always more to the story...and a process to uncover the truth!

Sadly, police departments make this process PAINFUL.  They always investigate themselves then the public has to draw out the truth/facts via FOIA and litigation.  Luckily FDLE has the hammer on this one.

[M2]

7 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Rushing to judgement goes BOTH ways.  How in the world can you say @flyusaf83 is rushing to judgement without saying the Police Chief is rushing to judgement as well? 

I hear what you are saying and fully support the approach of due process, the problem is that in 99% of all cases of suggested police misconduct the first reaction of leadership is to defend the officer's actions and that is just as bad.

The Police Chief should not succumb to an admission of guilt NOR should he auto-default to justifying the officers actions. 

Sadly, police departments make this process PAINFUL.  They always investigate themselves then the public has to draw out the truth/facts via FOIA and litigation.  Luckily FDLE has the hammer on this one.

It most certainly does, and as I stated, I don't defend what the chief of police said; but flyusaf83 is no more right in his statement than the police chief was in his.

His suggestion ("Just say you are sorry, that you feel horrible for the family of the victim, that you fully support murder charges, and that you are resigning because your department is full of trigger-happy douche-canoes") is just as wrong as the USAF's tendency to convict those of accusations without due process.   

I would expect a police chief or sheriff to defend their officers or deputies. 

In fact, if it was a commander backing one of their accused troops, there would be unmatched praise for them on this forum!

 

[ClearedHot]

51 minutes ago, M2 said:

It most certainly does, and as I stated, I don't defend what the chief of police said; but flyusaf83 is no more right in his statement than the police chief was in his.

His suggestion ("Just say you are sorry, that you feel horrible for the family of the victim, that you fully support murder charges, and that you are resigning because your department is full of trigger-happy douche-canoes") is just as wrong as the USAF's tendency to convict those of accusations without due process.   

As I stated I don't defend flyusaf83's statement, indeed a wrong assessment. 

51 minutes ago, M2 said:

I would expect a police chief or sheriff to defend their officers or deputies.

This is where we differ, I would expect a police chief to defend the law.

51 minutes ago, M2 said:

In fact, if it was a commander backing one of their accused troops, there would be unmatched praise for them on this forum!

As a Squadron/CC, Group/CC and Wing/CC I had troops accused of VERY serious crimes.  I never defaulted to guilty or innocent, instead I made certain they had every protection provided by due process and the appropriate support mechanisms that all troops are entitled to have. 

I never made a public statement defending their actions before conducting an investigation.

Body cams have changed the game in many ways and they are often viewed in exclusion without context.  If one used just the body cam in this case it would certainly appear the shooting was not justified, in fact it was murder.  There are certainly other factors in this case that must be investigated, at the top of the list is the female who guided the offer to the apartment and from her call and description to the officer painted a picture of ongoing domestic violence when in fact Roger was int he apartment alone. 

[HeloDude]

22 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

As a Squadron/CC, Group/CC and Wing/CC I had troops accused of VERY serious crimes.  I never defaulted to guilty or innocent, instead I made certain they had every protection provided by due process and the appropriate support mechanisms that all troops are entitled to have. 

Ouch…shouldn’t we all be defaulted the benefit of being innocent until due process says otherwise?  Maybe it’s a certain level of semantics, but “innocent until proven guilty” should mean it when we say it.  I understand that precautions had to be put in place at times, and you couldn’t assume the accusation/issue should be over and done with until an investigation/due process has run its course, but if you’re not giving the immediate benefit of the doubt to the accused, (what I define as innocence), then I have even more serious concerns with AF leadership than when I was still AD (and I definitely had still had some serious concerns here and there with certain leaders).

Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you or words mean one thing to me and another to you?  Perhaps this is how the UCMJ reads and I’m just very ignorant of the matter as I was never in legal or a commander?

[ClearedHot]

26 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Ouch…shouldn’t we all be defaulted the benefit of being innocent until due process says otherwise?  Maybe it’s a certain level of semantics, but “innocent until proven guilty” should mean it when we say it.  I understand that precautions had to be put in place at times, and you couldn’t assume the accusation/issue should be over and done with until an investigation/due process has run its course, but if you’re not giving the immediate benefit of the doubt to the accused, (what I define as innocence), then I have even more serious concerns with AF leadership than when I was still AD (and I definitely had still had some serious concerns here and there with certain leaders).

Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you or words mean one thing to me and another to you?  Perhaps this is how the UCMJ reads and I’m just very ignorant of the matter as I was never in legal or a commander?

Sort of and I should clarify...The accused is always assumed innocent from a legal perspective.  However there are some additional burdens/limitations on those holding G Series orders:

1.  A commander should never default to public statements of innocence or guilt. 

2.  Commanders and designated Magistrates (many don't realize that the MSG/CC is also a federal magistrate at some bases), have some limitations and requirements that don't allow for absolute proclamations of innocence.   As an example a commander will assume innocence and won't administer punishment without due process with all the protections (representation), the accused is entitled to have.  However, they may also authorize pre-trial confinement.

3.  Serious crimes outside the bounds of NJP go to a Courts Martial which purposely is usually removed from the commander's purview.  I had a bad rape case and the defense convinced the judge to bar me from attending the proceedings.  I had flown with the accused for many years so they used that to keep me our of the courtroom.  I was never going to attend anyway but it was interesting when the judge sent an the order of to the Wing HQ. 

Make sense?

[tac airlifter]

Great commentary CH.  Agreed 

[Lord Ratner]

18 hours ago, M2 said:

In fact, if it was a commander backing one of their accused troops, there would be unmatched praise for them on this forum!

I've got to disagree with you on this one. Look, my leadership was dog shit when I was court martialed, they basically trusted one misquoted OSI statement and assumed I was guilty for 6 months. But one thing they did well was keep silent publicly. And I wouldn't have expected any sort of public vocalization of support. They had no idea if I was innocent or guilty. You don't back a potential criminal; you quietly provide support to an innocent-until-proven-guilty person until the process is played out. 

But when you have a video that shows, at a bare minimum, a very uncertain situation that probably didn't go the way you would hope it would, then you should not be making any statements that imply your subordinate did the right thing. Because how can we trust in the process when one of the people who is a literal avatar for the process, the police chief, is not acting in accordance with the concept of blind Justice?

 

I don't think a police chief should be fired because one of his guys fucked up, unless and until the process shows a leadership failure. But part of the police chief's job is public relations, and reflexively supporting an officer who, to my eyes, looks to have murdered an innocent man, is a failure of his position. 

 

The tragedy in all of this is that policing very much does need an overhaul in the US, which is an argument from the left. Unfortunately the left has only bad and completely misdiagnosed solutions, whereas the right, I believe as a result of the left's unfair crusade, is reflexively supporting the police to the detriment of potential reforms.

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I've got to disagree with you on this one. Look, my leadership was dog shit when I was court martialed, they basically trusted one misquoted OSI statement and assumed I was guilty for 6 months. But one thing they did well was keep silent publicly. And I wouldn't have expected any sort of public vocalization of support. They had no idea if I was innocent or guilty. You don't back a potential criminal; you quietly provide support to an innocent-until-proven-guilty person until the process is played out. 

But when you have a video that shows, at a bare minimum, a very uncertain situation that probably didn't go the way you would hope it would, then you should not be making any statements that imply your subordinate did the right thing. Because how can we trust in the process when one of the people who is a literal avatar for the process, the police chief, is not acting in accordance with the concept of blind Justice?

 

I don't think a police chief should be fired because one of his guys fucked up, unless and until the process shows a leadership failure. But part of the police chief's job is public relations, and reflexively supporting an officer who, to my eyes, looks to have murdered an innocent man, is a failure of his position. 

 

The tragedy in all of this is that policing very much does need an overhaul in the US, which is an argument from the left. Unfortunately the left has only bad and completely misdiagnosed solutions, whereas the right, I believe as a result of the left's unfair crusade, is reflexively supporting the police to the detriment of potential reforms.

It is such a fine line to walk as a Commander, you just never know.

We had a guy get arrested for Child Porn.  Everyone liked him and it seemed very out of character.  He professed his innocence and a lot of people publicly defended him.  When it was over he set the all time DoD record quantity for Child Porn being found on a computer...Gigabytes...including stuff with toddlers. 

As a Squadron/CC I got a call from the 57th Wing/CC around 0200 one Friday night..."why did one of your troops abandon his pregnant wife on the side of I-10 in Florida?...she just called the command post!"  The troop in question was a bit odd, he had a few minor slip-ups but nothing major.  That being said everyone thought he was guilty.  Fast-forward a restraining order and a long investigation, it turns out the lunatic wife was three days from being his ex-wife when the event occured.  After having been separated for over a year (bad on him for waiting so long), she was finally served papers which led her to act out.  She was NOT pregnant, in fact she had a hysterectomy three years prior.  She was living in Jacksonville with her drug dealer boyfriend (who actually dumped her on I-10).  As soon as my troop was cleared he went on a quick TDY and when he came back the still almost ex-wife (the courts put the process on hold while he was investigated), had moved into his house...along with her drug dealer boyfriend!   I had to move him on base for three months while the courts finished the divorce and she was evicted.  Turns out, thanks to my first shirt, the troop had done EVERYTHING by the book, including paying spousal support based on the Florida support calculator.

You just never know.

[Prosuper]

Shouldn't the AFOSI be in charge of this investigation since the SRA was govt property to include autopsy? If the Deputy is found to be guilty of murder wouldn't he be handed over to the FBI/ US Marshalls, then a federal jail and charges. Or was NCIS Special Agent Leroy Gibbs lying to me?

[Sua Sponte]

3 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

Shouldn't the AFOSI be in charge of this investigation since the SRA was govt property to include autopsy? If the Deputy is found to be guilty of murder wouldn't he be handed over to the FBI/ US Marshalls, then a federal jail and charges. Or was NCIS Special Agent Leroy Gibbs lying to me?

OSI doesn’t have jurisdiction over state/local law enforcement. Just like state/local law enforcement don’t investigate crimes on a AFB since they don’t have jurisdiction.

[Sua Sponte]

On 5/17/2024 at 2:28 PM, ClearedHot said:

3.  Serious crimes outside the bounds of NJP go to a Courts Martial which purposely is usually removed from the commander's purview.  I had a bad rape case and the defense convinced the judge to bar me from attending the proceedings.  I had flown with the accused for many years so they used that to keep me our of the courtroom.  I was never going to attend anyway but it was interesting when the judge sent an the order of to the Wing HQ. 

Make sense?

You might’ve chosen the logical path of not showing unlawful command influence, but that doesn’t mean every commander has that common sense. When I was the court martialed the Wing King was caught trying to talk to members of the panel during a recess. After the recess the judge barred the Wing King from the court room after he was deposed by the defense attorneys. A lot of commanders of all levels are great examples of Dunning-Kruger Effect when it comes to legal matters. Some of them fuck around and find out.

[arg]

11 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It is such a fine line to walk as a Commander, you just never know.

We had a guy get arrested for Child Porn.  Everyone liked him and it seemed very out of character.  He professed his innocence and a lot of people publicly defended him.  When it was over he set the all time DoD record quantity for Child Porn being found on a computer...Gigabytes...including stuff with toddlers. 

As a Squadron/CC I got a call from the 57th Wing/CC around 0200 one Friday night..."why did one of your troops abandon his pregnant wife on the side of I-10 in Florida?...she just called the command post!"  The troop in question was a bit odd, he had a few minor slip-ups but nothing major.  That being said everyone thought he was guilty.  Fast-forward a restraining order and a long investigation, it turns out the lunatic wife was three days from being his ex-wife when the event occured.  After having been separated for over a year (bad on him for waiting so long), she was finally served papers which led her to act out.  She was NOT pregnant, in fact she had a hysterectomy three years prior.  She was living in Jacksonville with her drug dealer boyfriend (who actually dumped her on I-10).  As soon as my troop was cleared he went on a quick TDY and when he came back the still almost ex-wife (the courts put the process on hold while he was investigated), had moved into his house...along with her drug dealer boyfriend!   I had to move him on base for three months while the courts finished the divorce and she was evicted.  Turns out, thanks to my first shirt, the troop had done EVERYTHING by the book, including paying spousal support based on the Florida support calculator.

You just never know.

He was fortunate to have a CC/Shirt like ya'll. Many others are not so lucky.

[flyusaf83]

On 5/17/2024 at 1:22 PM, M2 said:

It most certainly does, and as I stated, I don't defend what the chief of police said; but flyusaf83 is no more right in his statement than the police chief was in his.

His suggestion ("Just say you are sorry, that you feel horrible for the family of the victim, that you fully support murder charges, and that you are resigning because your department is full of trigger-happy douche-canoes") is just as wrong as the USAF's tendency to convict those of accusations without due process.   

I would expect a police chief or sheriff to defend their officers or deputies. 

In fact, if it was a commander backing one of their accused troops, there would be unmatched praise for them on this forum!

 

I was being sarcastic and hyperbolic with what I said the police chief should say. I don’t like to see a fellow crew dog murdered in his own home.

I disagree that the Sheriff should automatically go to bat for his deputy here.  He is the leading LE official in his jurisdiction, and all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law - whether you’re a cop or not.

I understand the importance of someone being treated as innocent before proven guilty more than most, yet in the real world that isn’t what usually happens.  The frustrating thing in this case is that you have LE grasping at straws to defend the suspect despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, and then in other situations grasping at straws to portray a non-LE citizen as guilty.

Think about how LE portrays other cases publicly before trial that don’t involve cops as suspects.  In those cases, they aren’t shy to oversell their case to the public.  They shouldn’t be this hypocritical, but it’s a system run by tribal humans.

 

[HeloDude]

21 hours ago, flyusaf83 said:

I was being sarcastic and hyperbolic with what I said the police chief should say. I don’t like to see a fellow crew dog murdered in his own home.

I disagree that the Sheriff should automatically go to bat for his deputy here.  He is the leading LE official in his jurisdiction, and all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law - whether you’re a cop or not.

I understand the importance of someone being treated as innocent before proven guilty more than most, yet in the real world that isn’t what usually happens.  The frustrating thing in this case is that you have LE grasping at straws to defend the suspect despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, and then in other situations grasping at straws to portray a non-LE citizen as guilty.

Think about how LE portrays other cases publicly before trial that don’t involve cops as suspects.  In those cases, they aren’t shy to oversell their case to the public.  They shouldn’t be this hypocritical, but it’s a system run by tribal humans.

 

While I mentioned earlier that I didn’t like what I saw on the bodycam, and if he is fairly prosecuted, then I hope he goes to jail for a long time.  But that all being said…what if the state comes back and determines it was a legitimate shoot and no prosecution?  I don’t know the finer details of Florida laws, especially when it comes to when a police officer is allowed to use force.  Again, I definitely didn’t like what I saw, but will people accept the officer not being charged, or if charged, found not guilty?  I think for most people their minds have been made up, and that’s also not the best thing.  At this point, we just need to let the process play out.

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

While I mentioned earlier that I didn’t like what I saw on the bodycam, and if he is fairly prosecuted, then I hope he goes to jail for a long time.  But that all being said…what if the state comes back and determines it was a legitimate shoot and no prosecution?  I don’t know the finer details of Florida laws, especially when it comes to when a police officer is allowed to use force.  Again, I definitely didn’t like what I saw, but will people accept the officer not being charged, or if charged, found not guilty?  I think for most people their minds have been made up, and that’s also not the best thing.  At this point, we just need to let the process play out.

The DOJ will come in and conduct a "pattern of practices" investigation on the sheriff's department, much like what happened in Breonna Taylor's shooting. 

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

While I mentioned earlier that I didn’t like what I saw on the bodycam, and if he is fairly prosecuted, then I hope he goes to jail for a long time.  But that all being said…what if the state comes back and determines it was a legitimate shoot and no prosecution?  I don’t know the finer details of Florida laws, especially when it comes to when a police officer is allowed to use force.  Again, I definitely didn’t like what I saw, but will people accept the officer not being charged, or if charged, found not guilty?  I think for most people their minds have been made up, and that’s also not the best thing.  At this point, we just need to let the process play out.

We've royally fucked up policing if a citizen exercising their constitutional rights can be considered probable cause, or a reasonable threat. Like I said before, cops need to understand that they are expected to be at a higher risk. This isn't Australia; the presence of a gun is not enough to deem a situation threatening.

[HeloDude]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

We've royally fucked up policing if a citizen exercising their constitutional rights can be considered probable cause, or a reasonable threat. Like I said before, cops need to understand that they are expected to be at a higher risk. This isn't Australia; the presence of a gun is not enough to deem a situation threatening.

I’m not saying I personally disagree with you but I don’t know what the detailed laws are in Florida.  I’d like to think that what he did violates policy/breaks the law and that he’ll get a fair trial.