Now the sheriff says the suspect "lunged" at the deputies.

The guy looking for a cigarette in a car in his front yard turned and lunged at deputies, according to Sheriff Morgan. Of course, the deputies had to shoot 17 times at the unarmed man.

The deputies are on PAID leave (they get a paid vacation), while the guy shot in his yard will have tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills and a new pin inserted into his shattered femur.

Two comments.

I suspect the story about the suspect lunging has been embellished or maybe even fabricated (but I wasn't there and don't know for sure).

Secondly, if the FDLE ever rules that a LEO shooting is unjustified, I will be extremely shocked. It may have happened before, but I would bet every time against that outcome.

Eric, I have problems with my muscles and joints (don't we all?) I am quite sure it looks like I'm lunging out of the car whenever I get out. I also wonder if this 60-year-old man may have been hard of hearing.

It's frightening.

I think it doesn't look good for the sheriff's department.   I'm glad they didn't kill the guy.

nekochan wrote:

I think it doesn't look good for the sheriff's department.   I'm glad they didn't kill the guy.  

Especially since the neighbor was out in his yard and refuted the story that the deputies came up with...

Eric wrote:

The guy looking for a cigarette in a car in his front yard turned and lunged at deputies, according to Sheriff Morgan.  Of course, the deputies had to shoot 17 times at the unarmed man.

The deputies are on PAID leave (they get a paid vacation), while the guy shot in his yard will have tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills and a new pin inserted into his shattered femur.

Two comments.  

I suspect the story about the suspect lunging has been embellished or maybe even fabricated (but I wasn't there and don't know for sure).

Secondly, if the FDLE ever rules that a LEO shooting is unjustified, I will be extremely shocked.  It may have happened before, but I would bet every time against that outcome.

Although it may not look good with the amount of shots fired but FDLE will only rule on whether the use of force was justified...Whether there was a 'lunge' or a 'metallic' object observed will all contribute to that decision...Also, the officers were dispatched in a crime in progress call with an eyewitness describing what he saw as a male hot wiring a vehicle...

This will be a tough one, however the FDLE investigation turns out there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

nochain wrote:

This will be a tough one, however the FDLE investigation turns out there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Think there will be an out of court settlement....

The problem is that the taxpayers wind up footing the bill. What I see is that the blue line closes around the deputies (including the FDLE) and few cowboy deputies get justice.

The Sheriff needs to reel in his deputies.

And now we have ECSO deputies crawling through a home window and shooting two dogs inside a home. I feel sorrow for the homeowner, losing their dog and all, but their story doesn't ring true to me. Wasn't the whole 911 call about a guy threatening neighbors with a pistol? And wasn't the twenty-something threatening guy that was reported to have gone back into the home... the same one saying he was asleep in his underwear when the deputies arrived? If this is the same guy, I don't think anybody was asleep in that home when deputies arrived.

Eric wrote:

The problem is that the taxpayers wind up footing the bill.  What I see is that the blue line closes around the deputies (including the FDLE) and few cowboy deputies get justice.

The Sheriff needs to reel in his deputies.

And now we have ECSO deputies crawling through a home window and shooting two dogs inside a home.  I feel sorrow for the homeowner, losing their dog and all, but their story doesn't ring true to me.  Wasn't the whole 911 call about a guy threatening neighbors with a pistol?  And wasn't the twenty-something threatening guy that was reported to have gone back into the home... the same one saying he was asleep in his underwear when the deputies arrived?  If this is the same guy, I don't think anybody was asleep in that home when deputies arrived.  

 
    The shooting of the dog would be next to impossible to explain!...Only had the deputies observed firsthand the suspect entering... would they be covered to enter into the dwelling immediately...Because they were not sure they should have secured the area and attempted to make contact with the occupant(s) of the house to get permission to search...This incident is even more troubling than the shooting incident because of not being sure doubt there would have been a warrant issued under these circumstances...

What is refreshing here is that things can be discussed without the personal attacks...and juvenile comments that have made many leave the other forum...

The ECSD has had huge problems since i was a kid. I only say this is sooooo typical

mediawatcher wrote:

 
    The shooting of the dog would be next to impossible to explain!...Only had the deputies observed firsthand the suspect entering... would they be covered to enter into the dwelling immediately...Because they were not sure they should have secured the area and attempted to make contact with the occupant(s) of the house to get permission to search...This incident is even more troubling than the shooting incident because of not being sure doubt there would have been a warrant issued under these circumstances...

      What is refreshing here is that things can be discussed without the personal attacks...and juvenile comments that have made many leave the other forum...

I agree about "hot pursuit" aspects... in that the deputies have every right to warrantless entry if they witnessed a suspect enter the home.

But, woah! I'm not so sure about their right to barge into that house if they didn't witness the suspect go into the home. If multiple witnesses attest to the suspect committing assault (threatening with a weapon), and if these witnesses said the suspect was in the house, my guess is that a warrant would be issued if the occupants couldn't be roused from their "sleep" and grant permission to search.

I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, but I feel that the deputies probably overstepped their authority in an effort to expedite apprehension of the suspect... and wound up shooting two dogs as a result.

Eric wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

 
    The shooting of the dog would be next to impossible to explain!...Only had the deputies observed firsthand the suspect entering... would they be covered to enter into the dwelling immediately...Because they were not sure they should have secured the area and attempted to make contact with the occupant(s) of the house to get permission to search...This incident is even more troubling than the shooting incident because of not being sure doubt there would have been a warrant issued under these circumstances...

      What is refreshing here is that things can be discussed without the personal attacks...and juvenile comments that have made many leave the other forum...

I agree about "hot pursuit" aspects... in that the deputies have every right to warrantless entry if they witnessed a suspect enter the home.  

But, woah!  I'm not so sure about their right to barge into that house if they didn't witness the suspect go into the home.  If multiple witnesses attest to the suspect committing assault (threatening with a weapon), and if these witnesses said the suspect was in the house, my guess is that a warrant would be issued if the occupants couldn't be roused from their "sleep" and grant permission to search.

I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, but I feel that the deputies probably overstepped their authority in an effort to expedite apprehension of the suspect... and wound up shooting two dogs as a result.  

Agree.....ANOTHER $ettlement.....

mediawatcher wrote:

    Agree.....ANOTHER $ettlement.....

I agree, but I think you spelled $ettlement incorrectly. I believe in matters involving LEO settlements it is properly spelled "$$$$$$$ettlement."