Is the best we can do?

[Unregistered]

Most deputies are not ready to test for Sgt simply because they want to be apart of more specialized units. Once you promote you lose the opportunity to go into a specialized unit later on. If you have never worked in Major crimes, K9/Traffic, Narcotics etc, do you believe the Sheriff will allow you to supervise that unit. #2 we will star having people on the road who do not need to be Sgts. (JD, AR, AT,JB).

I think that has a lot to do with it, but then you have the agency back door the road deputies by hiring people straight into Major Crimes, K-9 and SRO. You can't win for losing around here. I bet the admin sits around and slaps each other on the backs about how smart these types of moves are.

[Unregistered]

I think that has a lot to do with it, but then you have the agency back door the road deputies by hiring people straight into Major Crimes, K-9 and SRO. You can't win for losing around here. I bet the admin sits around and slaps each other on the backs about how smart these types of moves are.

They probably filled those specialized units in an attempt to get people to apply for the Sgt.'s exam. Some much hope for this Sheriff, so much disappointment.

[Unregistered]

Ummm on a side note ya'll should just park your squad cars because, it saves more money. As a tac tax payer it is MY property. If you COPS were ethical, unlike the night of my wreck yall covered up, yall would park MY squad cars.

You can tell this poster is some old guy (Jones). Who uses the word "squad cars". Better yet he lives in another county so the car really isn't his

[Unregistered]

You can tell this poster is some old guy (Jones). Who uses the word "squad cars". Better yet he lives in another county so the car really isn't his

And your dumber than the idiot cop who posted that.

[Unregistered]

And your dumber than the idiot cop who posted that.

This is the idiot troll that won't stop spamming the SANTA ROSA pages. The woman who caused the wreck was ticketed and he's still acting like a whiny b...h and crying coverup because the woman knew Spencer. No evidence of a coverup because unfavorable action was taken against the woman and NO unfavorable action taken again him. Her insurance paid the damages. The officers were reprimanded for being rude, one even left the PD. Jones still wants to second guess every decision made by: Milton Police Chief Tindell; the I.A. from Milton PD; Milton City Council; Sheriff Johnson and FDLE. He must think its a giant conspiracy against him. If true then the woman would have never been identified and his own insurance would have to pay for it. This did not happen. I cannot begin to understand the sheer stupidity he has in that he doesn't stand to lose anything. He can move on with his life. Jones isn't that special, he's being a super drama queen. He just needs to find another hobby or a different wind to piss in. He reminds me of someone who won the lottery, but still raises hell because the loser also bought a ticket.

[Unregistered]

This is the idiot troll that won't stop spamming the SANTA ROSA pages. The woman who caused the wreck was ticketed and he's still acting like a whiny b...h and crying coverup because the woman knew Spencer. No evidence of a coverup because unfavorable action was taken against the woman and NO unfavorable action taken again him. Her insurance paid the damages. The officers were reprimanded for being rude, one even left the PD. Jones still wants to second guess every decision made by: Milton Police Chief Tindell; the I.A. from Milton PD; Milton City Council; Sheriff Johnson and FDLE. He must think its a giant conspiracy against him. If true then the woman would have never been identified and his own insurance would have to pay for it. This did not happen. I cannot begin to understand the sheer stupidity he has in that he doesn't stand to lose anything. He can move on with his life. Jones isn't that special, he's being a super drama queen. He just needs to find another hobby or a different wind to piss in. He reminds me of someone who won the lottery, but still raises hell because the loser also bought a ticket.

Really? what does Florida law state about leaving the scene I assume your a cop does it say?Identified some point?? SO how do you know no evidence of coverup if it was never investigated. Keep calling names I'm sure your man enough to call Jones names to his face. Which yes man are you?

[Unregistered]

Really? what does Florida law state about leaving the scene I assume your a cop does it say?Identified some point?? SO how do you know no evidence of coverup if it was never investigated. Keep calling names I'm sure your man enough to call Jones names to his face. Which yes man are you?

Identify yourself. I'll be glad to say it square to your face. Btw...I'm not a COP as you like to say. I'm not even a law enforcement officer.

Here are some things you do not seem to understand or do not want to understand. If you take a statue for its weight value and not apply it properly, it will not be an arrestable offense. Here's why.

In order for a crime to occur, two events must occur: Criminal Act coupled with Criminal Intent. Without one or the other, a crime does not occur.

In every criminal statute there are elements of the offenses. For example, the difference between Driving While License Suspended "Unknowingly" (FSS 322.34.1) means that the driver in question has a suspended drivers license but the driver was unaware of the suspension is guilty of a moving violation punishable with a traffic fine only. Exculpatory evidence could be there is no evidence to prove that the driver knew or should have known. No probable cause exists in that case and the only enforceable action is issuing a uniform traffic citation for a moving infraction or a warning. Most likely a UTC would be issued.

In accordance with 322.34.2, if there is knowledge by the driver that they knew their driver's license was suspended, then a criminal act occured. The ways to prove knowledge are by a prior issuance of a traffic citation for a prior DWLS; Court Order or the driver admits knowledge. Knowledge is key, but the statutes usually give the term "willfully," which actually means "deliberate."

The same thing applies in all criminal complaints. Criminal act with criminal intent. Was there criminal intent? If you look as 316.062, it is only a non-moving infraction and not a crime for someone to fail to provide information to law enforcement after a traffic crash. Also it does not mention anything about providing proof of insurance being one of the required tasks. There is a separate statute for that (FSS 316.646). Did it warrant a citation? Let's look further.

FSS 316.027 states "(2)(a) The driver of a vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property which results in injury to a person other than serious bodily injury shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and shall remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s.*316.062. A person who willfully violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.*775.082, s.775.083, or s.*775.084."

Essentially, if someone leaves the scene commits a felony, right? Not necessarily. It states "WILLFULLY VIOLATES THIS PARAGRAPH." So, did this lady knowingly and willfully violate this statute?

Remember that Mensrea means that the criminal intent. ""the act is not*culpable unless the mind is guilty." Let's look at her mind.

The officers, presumably Officer Wilson, was on scene for a considerable amount of time and spoke with her. Her vehicle was readily identifiable and she did, in fact, know prominent members of the community. Kari Sims, wife of longtime business Jr Sims, and SRSO Chief Deputy Jim Spencer. Also, if she refused treatment from EMS, she would have signed a refusal against medical advice (AMA).

This would tell a reasonably prudent
officer that she made no attempt to abscond from the scene or attempt willfully refuse to identify herself. But in her mind, it was a reasonable assumption that she thought she was allowed to leave the scene. Again, even if the officers didn't have all or any of her information, it is most likely she thought she could leave the scene.

So did she violate 316.027? With the above facts, coupled with the exculpatory evidence that she thought she was free to go as well as the officers themselves being on scene, I would surmise that that her mind was not guilty and therefore no culpability. It is safe to say that if this is true, the one element of the statute that would tie it all together, "willfully violates this paragraph," just isn't there.

The state has the burden of proof, and quite frankly, the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. Even if it went before a jury, there would be reasonable doubt and therefore a not-guilty verdict. But since the element of willfully violating the paragraph most likely doesn't exist, then it is impossible to establish probable cause. Her leaving the was not a deliberate violation. So, no, a violation of FSS 326.027 doesnt apply.

Does 316.062 apply? It is possible because the criminal aspect no longer applies and criminal intent is not required to be charged with an infraction if the elements of the statute are met. The traffic statutes have many instances where a moving or non-moving violation are NOT criminal acts, such as Unlawful Speed, Careless Driving, and even Violation of Right of Way.

The violator isn't required to have intent for a violation. But, there is always a caveat. If she was issued the citation and contests it on court, it is safe to say that she could use the same defense in that she thought she could leave and the hearing officer/magistrate, a wide scope of latitude and would most likely rule in favor of the violator. Finally, just as a hearing officer/magistrate has a wide array of latitude, polices officers have an even more wider array of discretion pertaining to non-criminal traffic violations. They can choose to write or abstain from writing a citation. They could have elected not to write the driver of V-1, but did so. Mailing citations after the fact is not an uncommon practice. FHP does it every day.

Moving on.

Was there a cover up? Anytime someone claims a coverup occurred, the first thing I do try to determine who has the most to gain, or lose.

In a coverup situation Randy Jones has everything to lose. Between injuries sustained and a heavily damaged pickup, a coverup could very well be a tremendous detriment. Not to mention the fact that Mrs. Jones was already suffering an unspoken illness. The "unknown" driver would have gotten away without reprisals. In a cover up little to no attempt would be made to identify and/or locate the other driver. Mr Jones and his family would have been subjected to undo hardships where the other driver got away. Did this happen? No.

Not only was she identified, all of her information was obtained and she was issued a UTC for violation of right of way. Her insurance information was also obtained, and presumably, paid for the damages to the truck.

The problem you have is that you don't know shit about laws, how they are applied or how each element of a statute has to be met. You don't know di#k about probable cause or proof beyond reasonable doubt. Just keep on making an utter fool of yourself. Nobody gives a hunka shit.

Identify yourself and I'll meet you. Anytime and any place. You/Jones aren't the ultimate badass. I have no problem proving it. I'm not a law enforcement officer, which means I'm twice as likely to be a bit more dangerous because the rules of engagement don't apply to me. But then again you aren't special.

[Unregistered]

Identify yourself. I'll be glad to say it square to your face. Btw...I'm not a COP as you like to say. I'm not even a law enforcement officer.

Here are some things you do not seem to understand or do not want to understand. If you take a statue for its weight value and not apply it properly, it will not be an arrestable offense. Here's why.

In order for a crime to occur, two events must occur: Criminal Act coupled with Criminal Intent. Without one or the other, a crime does not occur.

In every criminal statute there are elements of the offenses. For example, the difference between Driving While License Suspended "Unknowingly" (FSS 322.34.1) means that the driver in question has a suspended drivers license but the driver was unaware of the suspension is guilty of a moving violation punishable with a traffic fine only. Exculpatory evidence could be there is no evidence to prove that the driver knew or should have known. No probable cause exists in that case and the only enforceable action is issuing a uniform traffic citation for a moving infraction or a warning. Most likely a UTC would be issued.

In accordance with 322.34.2, if there is knowledge by the driver that they knew their driver's license was suspended, then a criminal act occured. The ways to prove knowledge are by a prior issuance of a traffic citation for a prior DWLS; Court Order or the driver admits knowledge. Knowledge is key, but the statutes usually give the term "willfully," which actually means "deliberate."

The same thing applies in all criminal complaints. Criminal act with criminal intent. Was there criminal intent? If you look as 316.062, it is only a non-moving infraction and not a crime for someone to fail to provide information to law enforcement after a traffic crash. Also it does not mention anything about providing proof of insurance being one of the required tasks. There is a separate statute for that (FSS 316.646). Did it warrant a citation? Let's look further.

FSS 316.027 states "(2)(a) The driver of a vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property which results in injury to a person other than serious bodily injury shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and shall remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s.*316.062. A person who willfully violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.*775.082, s.775.083, or s.*775.084."

Essentially, if someone leaves the scene commits a felony, right? Not necessarily. It states "WILLFULLY VIOLATES THIS PARAGRAPH." So, did this lady knowingly and willfully violate this statute?

Remember that Mensrea means that the criminal intent. ""the act is not*culpable unless the mind is guilty." Let's look at her mind.

The officers, presumably Officer Wilson, was on scene for a considerable amount of time and spoke with her. Her vehicle was readily identifiable and she did, in fact, know prominent members of the community. Kari Sims, wife of longtime business Jr Sims, and SRSO Chief Deputy Jim Spencer. Also, if she refused treatment from EMS, she would have signed a refusal against medical advice (AMA).

This would tell a reasonably prudent
officer that she made no attempt to abscond from the scene or attempt willfully refuse to identify herself. But in her mind, it was a reasonable assumption that she thought she was allowed to leave the scene. Again, even if the officers didn't have all or any of her information, it is most likely she thought she could leave the scene.

So did she violate 316.027? With the above facts, coupled with the exculpatory evidence that she thought she was free to go as well as the officers themselves being on scene, I would surmise that that her mind was not guilty and therefore no culpability. It is safe to say that if this is true, the one element of the statute that would tie it all together, "willfully violates this paragraph," just isn't there.

The state has the burden of proof, and quite frankly, the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. Even if it went before a jury, there would be reasonable doubt and therefore a not-guilty verdict. But since the element of willfully violating the paragraph most likely doesn't exist, then it is impossible to establish probable cause. Her leaving the was not a deliberate violation. So, no, a violation of FSS 326.027 doesnt apply.

Does 316.062 apply? It is possible because the criminal aspect no longer applies and criminal intent is not required to be charged with an infraction if the elements of the statute are met. The traffic statutes have many instances where a moving or non-moving violation are NOT criminal acts, such as Unlawful Speed, Careless Driving, and even Violation of Right of Way.

The violator isn't required to have intent for a violation. But, there is always a caveat. If she was issued the citation and contests it on court, it is safe to say that she could use the same defense in that she thought she could leave and the hearing officer/magistrate, a wide scope of latitude and would most likely rule in favor of the violator. Finally, just as a hearing officer/magistrate has a wide array of latitude, polices officers have an even more wider array of discretion pertaining to non-criminal traffic violations. They can choose to write or abstain from writing a citation. They could have elected not to write the driver of V-1, but did so. Mailing citations after the fact is not an uncommon practice. FHP does it every day.

Moving on.

Was there a cover up? Anytime someone claims a coverup occurred, the first thing I do try to determine who has the most to gain, or lose.

In a coverup situation Randy Jones has everything to lose. Between injuries sustained and a heavily damaged pickup, a coverup could very well be a tremendous detriment. Not to mention the fact that Mrs. Jones was already suffering an unspoken illness. The "unknown" driver would have gotten away without reprisals. In a cover up little to no attempt would be made to identify and/or locate the other driver. Mr Jones and his family would have been subjected to undo hardships where the other driver got away. Did this happen? No.

Not only was she identified, all of her information was obtained and she was issued a UTC for violation of right of way. Her insurance information was also obtained, and presumably, paid for the damages to the truck.

The problem you have is that you don't know shit about laws, how they are applied or how each element of a statute has to be met. You don't know di#k about probable cause or proof beyond reasonable doubt. Just keep on making an utter fool of yourself. Nobody gives a hunka shit.

Identify yourself and I'll meet you. Anytime and any place. You/Jones aren't the ultimate badass. I have no problem proving it. I'm not a law enforcement officer, which means I'm twice as likely to be a bit more dangerous because the rules of engagement don't apply to me. But then again you aren't special.

A few flaws to your rant one did woman have intent maybe not until she was notified to call pd immediately and never did now can you argue that made intent sure. If woman signed AMA forms with EMS why was this ever an issue why did Milton officers under own admission state they didn't know who or where she went. Couldn't they have gotten info from EMS but they didn't. Is Spencer that arrogant to not make sure everything is on up and up. By his own admission he was at hospital your telling me Cambell never mentioned Milton was trying to contact lady.But it's all good I'm around Milton every day how do I give you your opportunity to become famous I'm your Huckleberry.

[Unregistered]

A few flaws to your rant one did woman have intent maybe not until she was notified to call pd immediately and never did now can you argue that made intent sure. If woman signed AMA forms with EMS why was this ever an issue why did Milton officers under own admission state they didn't know who or where she went. Couldn't they have gotten info from EMS but they didn't. Is Spencer that arrogant to not make sure everything is on up and up. By his own admission he was at hospital your telling me Cambell never mentioned Milton was trying to contact lady.But it's all good I'm around Milton every day how do I give you your opportunity to become famous I'm your Huckleberry.

Again it doesn't prove intent, there's no probable cause and certainly no proof beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps you should take REAL law classes beyond the scope of Google or Judge Judy. Finally you haven't identified yourself.

[Unregistered]

Again it doesn't prove intent, there's no probable cause and certainly no proof beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps you should take REAL law classes beyond the scope of Google or Judge Judy. Finally you haven't identified yourself.

And you haven't identified yourself what am I supposed to do tell you I drive a red truck and go wait for for you in some parking lot. You never ID yourself. Maybe your that business owner whose wife has had Real law classes who didn't know enough about the law to check before she took woman away from the scene.