Austin Jones the shooter
Fox News reports
A 20-year-old Longwood man has passed away from injuries suffered as a result of a possible accidental shooting, authorities say.
Seminole County deputies responded to Dunwoody Commons condominiums over the weekend in reference to a call reporting a shooting. Once on scene, they found Christopher Negron with a gunshot wound to his head.
Austin Jones, 19, of Sanford, was arrested in connection to the shooting and charged with manslaughter.
According to witnesses, Jones was showing a handgun to two friends. They indicated that Jones believed the gun was unloaded when he cocked it and pulled the trigger, causing the gun to fire a single bullet that struck Negron just above the eye.
Jones is currently being held at the John E. Polk correction facility on a no bond status.
Now, what was so hard about that? Were his civil rights violated by such a swift arrest? Why was there no need for a lengthy investigation?
I don't think anyone here has claimed that there is a problem with making an arrest right away, when the facts of the case warrant it. We just don't go into a shrieking rage when there is not an instant arrest, when it's not immediately obvious that a) a crime was committed, and b) who committed it.
ReplyDeleteAnd in fact, even if both of those questions are immediately answered, and there is still no immediate arrest, we can't understand why we should become incandescent with rage over the fact that the arrest comes days or even weeks later. What difference does it make?
I publish stories almost every day that meet your criteria for immediate arrest but, for various reasons the decision is postponed. When I point this out, you and the others always defend the decision.
DeleteThe difference is that in many of those cases no arrest is ever made, again for various reasons. You don't mind that because you identify with the bumbling idiots and hidden criminals I post about. To you it's personal.
Without knowing vastly more about the shootings than will be found in a short news article or two, I have not nearly enough of a basis to determine if there should be an arrest, or not.
DeleteI admit that lack of knowledge, and you don't.
Presumably there are some arrests that should have been made, but weren't. The solution is not to shriek a demand for an arrest every damned time, whether one is warranted, or not.
Can't say it better than those two comments, Kurt.
DeleteKurt, I'm not shrieking. I'm simply pointing out problems. Your various ways of describing that, always exaggerated and negative, are just more of your subtle personal attacks.
DeleteThe fact is, as you yourself admitted, there are some cases in which an arrest should be made and isn't.
Mikeb, what you haven't said is what the hurry is. Arrests and trials do come many times. You demand someone be arrested immediately, but the justice system goes at a deliberate pace for a reason.
DeleteOh, and thanks, Simon.
DeleteWhy do some police treat an incident different? This story is no different than many you post, even when witnesses say it was an accident. The more these incidents happen and get publicized, the more police will react with a tougher position, as they sense the outrage of the public.
ReplyDeleteOr c) what the crime is? Maybe they want to investigate the possibility of murder before charging someone with manslaughter.
ReplyDeleteThere were witnesses. Unless those witnesses were found to be lying, why wait? Why wait to arrest for manslaughter, if evidence proves murder, they can change the charge. At least they have the criminal in jail.
DeleteGood point, TS.
DeleteThis isn't my area of expertise, but it’s highly plausible that being thorough every step of the way helps lead to convictions at the end. What is gained by premature arrests and changing charges? With what Kurt said, what difference does it make if the arrest is days or weeks later?
DeleteAnonymous is right that they can amend the charges, at least for a time. However, the investigation may take a bit of time in a case that looks like manslaughter but just doesn't smell right, so the police may want to wait to ensure they're not already in the trial when they find new evidence.
DeleteAnother factor would be whether or not the person appears likely to be a flight risk. If they're not likely to flee while the investigation is underway, the police may not be in a hurry to arrest them while they're building their case to ensure a conviction.
If you already have enough evidence to arrest for the lower charge (witnesses) why wait? Oh, I already asked that.
DeleteThe ones that result in arrest and conviction after a delay are not the problem. The problem ones are those that for one reason or another do not result in an arrest ever. Guys who leave their guns around for kids to find are the most obvious examples. I post a lot of them, yet you guys are reluctant to admit there's a problem.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteLike I said, they may have enough for an arrest on the lesser charge, but once they make an arrest, the ball stops rolling. Sometimes they want to wait until they have enough to convict--especially if they have a greater charge in mind. It happens all the time in other types of cases--not sure why you can accept it there, but not here.
Simon
Delete??????
No it doesn't, they can add charges even after arresting for a different charge. It happens all the time. Don't know why you don't understand that.
Typo, Was supposed to say the ball STARTS rolling, meaning the case starts forward, you get arraignment, and then you head inexorably toward the trial.
DeleteAs I've said over and over, you're correct that they can add charges, and that they do all the time. I understand this perfectly well.
The issue is, there comes a point where they can't add them--they're pretty much locked in with what they have. That is why, as I said, they could make the arrest, but they might not want to until they gather more evidence.
This also happens all the time, and I don't know why you keep denying it.
Simon, I've been meaning to ask you, are you the one who used to comment here under the name Tennessean?
DeleteYes. I didn't take up the handle when I came back since I wasn't sure if I'd stick around very long.
DeleteOnce I decided to stick around a bit, I was curious when the connection would be made and what the trigger would be.
Simon, I figured it was you--a lawyer from Tennessee--and I'm glad you're here.
DeleteCheers, Mate. I was glad to find everyone still at it after my hiatus. I'd gotten involved in other things and just dropped out of the habit of coming round here since the AWB threat was over and there were other things to be concerned about round here. Our legislature has plenty of stupid to go round.
DeleteWe traded Democrat stupid for Republican stupid. Different set of issues--same authoritarian shit. At least there's a bit less corruption at the moment (though just give them some time and a little laxity from the voters and I'm sure they'll drum up something like the Democrats in this West Tennessee have been known for--maybe not much time considering Haslam).
Yes, I see Greg is so concerned about a name being absolute identity and anons are just cowards because we don't know who they are. But you guys can just pick and choose a different name. Laughable.
DeleteIn your contentious and disagreeable way, I don't suppose any of you will admit that there exists a tremendous disparity in the way negligent shootings are treated, will you?
ReplyDeleteSure, I'll admit that. There also "exists a tremendous disparity in" the particulars of each shooting, calling for a similarly tremendous disparity in how they are handled.
DeleteI agree with Kurt. For example, in this case, while we don't have much to go on, we can speculate a bit based on this part:
Delete"They indicated that Jones believed the gun was unloaded when he cocked it and pulled the trigger, causing the gun to fire a single bullet that struck Negron just above the eye."
To me, this sounds like he may have said, "Don't worry, this thing's unloaded," and then pointed it at his buddy intending to dry fire it. Remember the discussion Flying Junior and I had last week regarding the PA father? (The discussion was actually under the case of the guy from Ohio later in the week which the case was being compared to if you want to review it.)
Junior thought the other case was something like this, but I was speculating, due to the involuntary manslaughter charge and the little we had in the article, that it was a different situation where he was not being mindful of where the muzzle was pointed rather than willfully breaking rule 2. I said that if it was the willful violation of the rule then the case should have resulted in a stronger charge of reckless homicide.
Same goes for this case--if it's what it looks like from the tiny bit we've been given in the article, then it should be reckless homicide. It's possible that the cops chose to arrest him because that was how they evaluated this and they knew the DA would want to prosecute it as such. In other cases of negligence, they may not know if the DA will want to prosecute, so they may want to write it up, and as long as they don't think the person will flee, take it to the DA to see what he wants to do. After all, the DA may decline prosecution because of many reasons--doesn't think a case rises to the level of criminal negligence, doesn't think he can get a conviction, doesn't have the resources to prosecute everything and is already stretched to thin on more serious cases, etc.
The last of those possibilities--lack of resources--is one of the reasons that I'll even admit there is a disparity beyond just the facts of the cases in how some jurisdictions treat things. How tremendous the disparity is and what causes it I can't say without actually spending a huge amount of time researching all of the cases, but yes, there is a disparity in this, and in how all other crimes are treated. Sometimes it's racial, sometimes it's economic (as in the class of the defendant), many times it's a matter of resources, sometimes it's a matter of personal choice/politics (is the DA's pet peeve drugs, guns, sex trafficking, etc.).
DeleteFocusing on the gun issue alone is missing the forest for the trees. Our justice system is in dire need of repair. We need a better class of DA's--men and women who are more concerned with justice being done than maintaining an 80% conviction rating for the sake of highly simplified campaigns. We need better funding for both the DA's offices and the public defenders so that the system is no longer a plea deal mill. We need better legislators writing better laws with more care for specifically defining crimes rather than writing sloppy, overbroad statutes. We need to free up resources by getting rid of stupid, victimless crimes like pot possession and some of the paperwork crimes for everything from guns to banking so that prosecutors have the time and resources to prosecute the ever loving shit out of people who run guns for criminals, who actually hurt people, who actually defraud people--E.g. take all the money being wasted applying Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank to all companies and actually put that to use prosecuting government corruption and corrupt bankers and businessmen.
Etc. Etc. and so forth.
How about putting some of this boundless energy into fixing the system in all these ways and more that you may think of? And yes, within this structure, you can try to fix the system so that people don't get off when they shouldn't--for all types of crimes.
Of course you agree with Kurt. But what he said was bullshit. There are many cases that are not dissimilar yet one guy goes to jail and the other walks. What Kurt said is the disparity in treatment is due to the disparity in the particulars of the cases. I've shown countless examples of how that's often not the case at all.
DeleteBut, by all means, Simon, you go ahead and agree with Kurt.
Because you are dealing with humans who not only make mistakes, but make different decisions and judgments based on the same, or similar facts.
DeleteI have read little interest by the pro gun writers on this blog, that they are willing to work within the law to change the law. Which you know I mention all the time.
Mike,
DeleteDid you even read my whole post? I said I agreed that a lot of cases are because of disparate circumstances, and I gave an analysis of why I thought this case was different than one other we've discussed.
Then, in the next post, I said that I'd go further and say that there are also disparities caused by various factors in our system and tried to identify those factors and talk about how to fix them.
In other words, I agreed with Kurt on the nature of many cases, and with YOU on the nature of others--though I identified various system wide reasons for the disparity in treatment rather than just one.
Maybe you can actually read the posts and respond to what I said rather than what you assumed I said based on my first sentence.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteMaybe you'd care to comment on my suggestions of where problems in our system of laws are and how we could work to change them and improve the system?
That's the problem with the "side" stance you guys take, you can't have it both ways. You are linked to those who discard the law as a process to solve problems. Since you use the "side" word and stance against anti gun people (which I am not) then you have to accept that you are part of a "side" that is outside the law. That's the "side" you have chosen and the "side" mentality you use. Maybe you would care to respond to some of my comments citing the same, but you don't. You don't have to, but don't expect the same from me and then make it sound like I'm not willing to engage. I'm not into the "gotcha" game you guys play with Mike.
DeleteAnonymous, when you post anonymously, we can't tell whether you've given us your position on things in the past or not. But I don't recall you ever taking a stand. You whine and throw mud, but you never offer your own answers. Everyone here knows my position on guns and my name.
DeleteSimon, if you gave me the same courtesy, I might.
DeleteMike,
DeleteNo comments on my agreement with you or the proposals about what's wrong with the system and how to fix it?
Next time you agree with me put it in the first sentence of the comment.
DeleteC'mon! No response other than that? Kurt had already responded, so I was giving a statement in the form of Yes, He's right about a lot of cases, but Mike's still right about some others, and here's where I think the problem lies. Sure it was a little long, but short things that fit on bumper stickers rarely do the trick.
Delete