 |
| Interrupted "Gunning" in the shower leads to a violent attack on an employee--now what happens to this inmate? What additional time will this individual face for beating up an officer, sending him to the hospital? |
What will happen to the inmate in our jail that attacked and beat our employee, the jail corrections officer? That is a question I pondered when I heard about the horrific event that happened last week at the jail. After the news reports on the incident--I'm sure even more are wondering about this.
Apparently, the officer was following standard procedure as a nurse was about to enter the spaces--the showers are cleared of inmates prior to the entrance of the nurses---for everyone's benefit, comfort, and safety.
One inmate, apparently, "wasn't finished" and refused to leave the shower. According to some who are familiar with what occurred, this particular inmate was "gunning" (masturbating in the open shower area) and didn't want to leave. Apparently he was hoping to get a glimpse of the nurse and to also potentially have the chance to expose his genetalia to the nurse.
This incident took place in an area of low level offenders, and so having the one officer clear the shower was not an unusual practice-according to what I have learned. (i.e. in areas of more serious offenders, two officers would clear the shower) But although this particular inmate didn't appear to have violent offenses on his rap sheet--many believe that a majority of these "nonviolent" offenders still may have the propensity for violence and may actually have histories of violence for which charges have not been proven in court. Regardless--the officer was following protocol, so far as I've been told.
When asked to leave the area and finish his "shower", a verbal altercation took place and the inmate refused to comply. Upon being given reiterated commands by the officer to leave the shower area, the inmate attacked the officer before he could radio for assistance, punching him repeatedly and throwing him across the shower area and continuing to rain down blows on the officer who by this point was in a defensive posture.
.
According to a source, the officer followed his training and was able to successfully deploy his pepper spray which sent the inmate reeling-- looking for a towel to wipe it from his eyes. And as the inmate was wiping the spray from his eyes, additional officers converged on the scene and the prisoner was restrained.
So I asked someone that would know what the sentence might be for an incarcerated individual who attacks a corrections officer--sending such an officer to the hospital. I'm told it depends on multiple factors, most important of which are the severity of the officer's injuries resulting from the battery. If a battery on a law enforcement officer is the charge by the State Attorney--then the maximum penalty is 5 years, as this would be a 3rd degree Felony. If the injuries are severe, disfiguring, and or resulted in permanent scarring--the charge could be upgraded by the prosecutor to aggravated battery on a LEO--which would be a first degree felony.
"So 5 years maximum was my stunned question?" "Yes, and often if it results in a plea it is less. Could be two years, could be as little as 6 months" was the answer I received from someone who knows.
This is a problem, so far as I'm concerned.
We already have one hell of a hard time filling these positions---which will be even harder if these sorts of vicious attacks only result in minimal extra time for these perpetrators.
"The battery on a corrections officer by an imate should be an automatic first degree felony--this would nudge the system toward more lengthy added sentences" said this individual who is very familiar with the justice system locally.
I agree. I'm going to speak with our delegation about it--maybe it is something that can be added to a bill this session that has similar provisions for firemen who are assaulted while doing their jobs.
But we will first have to see if that bill is moving, and more importantly, if that bill's sponsor would accept an amendment.
3 comments:
Agreed, that 5 yrs maximum is not enough. Although the charge of "battery" is increased from a 1st degree misdemeanor to a 3rd degree felony for a battery on specified staff, perhaps there should be an "aggravating circumstances factor involved." One might say there already is because if the victim receives great bodily harm or a weapon is used the charges are increased (as stated in the post), but perhaps another condition should be added to the statute in the cases involving specified staff. These persons are engaged in lawful activity linked to their respective job descriptions when they are the victims of such attacks; IMO that changes the context of the incident.
Maybe the intent of the subject should be considered in these cases, even if the victim was able to use their training and abilities to avoid great bodily harm.
From the information provided so far, the attacker intended much greater harm to the officer, but the staff member was able to defend and deploy his chemical weapon, perhaps avoiding even further more serious injury. The victim's successful efforts should not mitigate the subjects level of criminal intent. Its almost as if the victim, in the course of successful self defense, is working to help the subject reduce their criminal liability? That doesn't make sense.
Nevertheless, the inmate, if convicted, will (should) forever have his inmate classification raised to higher custody level for this crime and current incarceration and for any potential future incarcerations, no matter what the charges would be.
Putting aside all context of the blog post and this particular instance, which is woven with generalities of uncertain source, and focusing on this statement:
"many believe that a majority of these "nonviolent" offenders still may have the propensity for violence and may actually have histories of violence for which charges have not been proven in court."
**Could you please define "many" in the phrase "many believe"--how many, and from what section of the population, or is this from total population of Pensacolians (and then please provide the geographical parameters), all residents of this Country, all the people in the world, or just some people you sought out for thoughts on this scenario? In other words what are your sources? Are they purely anecdotal, or is there some basis in peer reviewed research and statistics that a reader could refer to?
I could perform the exercise requesting verification of specific parameters and sources for
--"believe" (which indicates an opinion rather than knowledge of data)
--"majority" how much? Out of what group? The prisoners actually officially coded as "non violent," or the ones who are coded as such but many people believe actually may not be?
No doubt there are prisoners in the jail who committed acts that were never proven in court and therefore aren't on their rap sheet. Just like there are prisoners in the jail who didn't commit acts that were never proven in court but are nonetheless on their rap sheet.
God help the CEO who gets stuck in a situation such as this, if this is how it indeed transpired.
God help any person who falls afoul of the justice system here, particular public defense, for minor crimes, and gets stuck in this jail.
Works both ways, of course.
Melissa: First off, the account is an accurate representation of the events that led to the attack on this employee, corroborated from multiple firsthand accounts of those who know. And to the point about "low-level" offenders having the disposition toward violence--of course this is a generalization based upon conversations with many I have had, many that are intimately familiar with the criminal justice system and the jail. Of course, obviously it does not apply to them all. But it is an accurate statement based upon what I know and have been told.
Post a Comment