Latest Headlines
- Now That Matt Gaetz Has Resigned After Being Picked For Trump’s AG, Who Will Seek His Seek?
- Here’s The Latest On CSX Closures In Escambia County
- Update: Northwest Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz Resigns From Congress After AG Nomination
- New ‘Wind Phone’ In Cantonment ‘Connects’ Grieving Families With Deceased Loved Ones
- Jay Couple Wins State Agriculture Competition, $45,000 Prize
- Century Paying $500 COVID-19 Stipend To Some Employees
- Escambia County Sheriff’s Office Creating Law Enforcement Memorial Plaza
- New Details Emerge In Fatal DUI Crash That Killed 14-Year-Old Cantonment Boy; Driver Released On Bond
- Cantonment Rotary Donates To Hurricane Relief
- Business Alliance Calls For Escambia County To Deed Part of OLF-8 For Light Industrial Use
Charges Dropped Against Protester Carried Across Pensacola Bay Bridge On SUV’s Hood
August 20, 2020
Charges have been dropped against the protester carried three miles across the Pensacola Bay Bridge on the hood of a SUV.
Jason Uphaus of the 800 block of South Highway 29 was originally charged with disorderly conduct and criminal mischief.
State Attorney Bill Eddins said that probable cause existed for an arrest, there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case.
“The charges in this case arose out of an incident that occurred at the foot of the Pensacola Bay Bridge during a demonstration. The victim in this case has failed lo cooperate or communicate with this office during our investigation of this matter. Based on the victim’s lack of cooperation as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, there is insufficient evidence to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” Eddins said.
One June 6, group of protesters had walked the short distance from the Graffiti Bridge on 17th Avenue to Bayfront Parkway, locking arms and temporarily blocking access to the Pensacola Bay Bridge. The Ford Flex drove at a slow speed through the group, with Uphaus jumping onto the hood of vehicle.
The driver continued slowly, with Uphaus on the hood, three miles across the Pensacola Bay Bridge where the vehicle was stopped by Gulf Breeze Police.
After about 20 minutes, Pensacola Mayor Grover Robinson arrived to speak to the group, and they left the roadway a short time later.
Images for NorthEscambia.com, click to enlarge.
Comments
36 Responses to “Charges Dropped Against Protester Carried Across Pensacola Bay Bridge On SUV’s Hood”
It would be a waste of the state’s resources to try the peculiar hitchhiker absent the cooperation of the one who gave him the ride.
Any compensation for damages is between the two parties.
In other words, if the victim doesn’t care, it is not an issue for us. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is good he picked such a forgiving person for his ride. Others might have been afraid or irritated enough to harm him.
The “victim” isn’t cooperating bc they weren’t in the right either. They weren’t justified in their actions and they know it.
The drop charge makes me wonder…did the victim get doxxed, threatened or harrassed?
The victim isn’t cooperating. This means the victim is either failing to attend a deposition or refuses to testify. This isn’t on the state attorney’s office; this is on the driver of the vehicle. If the driver is too gutless to stand up for justice then good for him having to pay for his own damaged mirror.
Maybe the victim doesn’t want any repercussions from who some of the protesters really are? They have some major power behind them and could cause him plenty of grief!
So if I go rob a store, caught on video, and the store owner (cashier) doesn’t “cooperate or communicate with this office during our investigation” I go free??????
If the victim was not cooperating sounds like winess tampering, probably threaten if they testafied. State can pick up the charges from the video they do it many times when a burglary is investigated. If they don’t hold those accountable for their crimes it a slap in the face for those who truly peaceful protest without violence or stand in streets.
“Insufficicient evidence”? Exhibits 1-4 above are evidence enough. He should have been charged with carjacking.
Shame on you State Attorney’s office.
I will gladly drive this person across the bridge on the hood of my vehicle if he dares to jump in front of my vehicle. Anytime he wants.
@Stumpknocker, maybe he was shaking his head too hard and got double vision , and all of the sentences got cattywampus!
I would have gladly given the gentleman a ride. I would have pulled him inside (for his safety) and proceeded to a desolate location for some education and instruction.
I declare shenanigans… but not from the State Attorney Eddins.
the guy on the hood has all the classic signs of being a closet marxist.
and the way that entire protest was drummed up it was clear that it was being organized by *Someone*
my bet is that the same organizers who were able to drum up the protest were well connected enough to be able to figure out who the driver of the car was.
the shenanigans? witness tampering on behalf of the idiot who rode on the hood.
@ Not Shocked:
I stand to be corrected, but I believe there were two contenders for Mr Eddins’s position as he is not running again. A local Assistant State Attorney who was running has withdrawn, leaving a lady from Okaloosa County as the sole candidate, who I believe will bring a lot of attention to her office as she is the daughter of a well known person.
According to Florida Statute 316.130 Pedestrians; traffic regulations. ” (10) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.” This person was clearly not at a cross walk nor an intersection.
Ok so they weren’t crossing the road, we have that covered also. (8) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
But the one that should have stopped it all was Florida Statute §316.2045, the obstruction of traffic statute provides in pertinent part: 316.2045,(1) It is unlawful for any person or persons willfully to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of any public street, highway, or road by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding, or restraining traffic or passage thereon…
I guess now we need to add laws including not jumping on cars. It seems most laws are written to protect the stupid. The majority of the population knows how to conduct themselves when in public and most of the time common sence is all one needs to survive but not in todays world.
@RC. I believe you hit the nail on the head. I’ve said the same since it happened. STAGED. He props up on the hood like he’s in a parade. No fear or doubt that he will not be thrown off the car. NONE. Both him and the ones in the car seemed more concerned with the cell videos and selfies than fear of the unknown. Which is what it would have been if this was a random unexpected occurrence.
I have nothing to say as far as political perspectives go, but I’ve grown so cynical towards local politics and events that it’s kind of hilarious to watch all of this unfold. It’s thoroughly, uniformly and laughably horrible, just like everything else going on around here. I’m ready to go to college, preferably somewhere a decent distance away.
Shaking My Head – The victim is the driver of the car, not the guy who assaulted the car by jumping on it. The victim who is not cooperating is the driver of the car, not the guy who jumped on it.
Shaking My Head- The VICTIM is the person whose car was jumped onto. Very brazen of you to come after the other comments when in fact, YOU are incorrect.
@shaking my head , learn to read, you go back and read again. It’s not the idiot that jumped on the hood of the car that’s not cooperating, it the victim who is the driver , now go read again lol .
Since when is “failure to cooperate or communicate” with law enforcement a free pass to prosecution? I imagine there are a lot of people who would love to have that option. So disappointed in Mr. Eddins.
If they get in the road and block traffic they need to be ran over
If y’all would learn how to read, you would see that the idiot that jumped on the hood of the vehicle is NOT COOPERATING!!! Good grief. No wonder so many rumors get started. Learn to read. Do your research. SMDH
That’s their excuse for dropping any case. The video is wasn’t good enough, it didn’t happen on video or the classic “victim not cooperating”. The SAO is a joke so remember this come election time. Don’t elect come crony that’s has the current SA endorsement.
Really? No charges? All I can say is the driver of that car was too kind. Had he jumped up on the hood of my vehicle I would have sent him over the side of the bridge.
This doesn’t surprise me one bit,and here’s why-I asked probably 20 people about this and what they would do in this case. Almost every one said they’d speed up and slam on brakes and throw him off of their hood. A couple more said they’d drive away from the others and stop and drag him off the hood. Not one said they’d ease over the bridge at 15 MPH and let him off on the other side. Also,look at him sitting on the hood with two fingers on the edge of the hood with his phone out videoing. I’d think he’d be holding on with both hands and be trying to wedge his toes in the grill of the car and be hoping the guy didn’t give him serious road rash.He isn’t one bit worried about the guy doing anything the way he’s lounged out like he’s homecoming queen or something. And now the “victim” refuses to cooperate. Anyone else see this as staged?
Did the rest of you commenters not read the article? ” The victim in this case has failed lo cooperate or communicate with this office during our investigation” Just like in domestic abuse cases if the victim is unwilling to prosecute then there is no case. The damage was to private property not public property so the driver choose not to go forward with the case by not talking to the prosecutor equals case closed.
OLE BILLY … proving Pensacola still has the “Good Ole Boys , You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours ” system still in full swing. If this was domestic violence, even if the victim did not want to pursue or co-operate, the state would pick it up and charge the guy with everything they could muster up.
Seems there is plenty of video and photo evidence for a charge, not sure why the victim would have to provide more there’s clearly lawbreaking activity evident. Makes you wonder what is going on behind the scenes…
From the stand your ground law: A normal citizen, not doing anything illegal, is not required to retreat when threatened with deadly force, even when outside the citizen’s own home.
Blocking traffic IS illegal! So the use of this to try and justify what he did is null and void from the start!
How is there not sufficient evidence he’s on the roof of the vehicle and theres video of the protest standing in front of the lanes blocking traffic so the driver continued to drive forward after trying to pass these imbusils? Oh wait I forgot rules don’t apply to these “peaceful protests ” that include blocking traffic and causing problems to people who don’t stop and notice them because they’re looking for that long sought sense of appreciation that there poor hearts so long desired
Proof is right there in the picture-and he gets off scott free. This is why these protests continue to happen, no consequences for their stupid actions. Had he fallen off the vehicles hood, I’m sure he would’ve sued the person and won – that’s how our justice system works these days! RIDICULOUS!
It’s hard to believe the State Attorney’s Office, which I have much respect for, will not carry this case forward. There shouldn’t have to be any cooperation with the victim, because everything is on video. Seems video works in all other cases. This is the 1st time I can remember Mr. Eddins disappointing me in a case. I guess everyone can bend to pressure.
No evidence who are you kidding??
Look at the pictures
A video is not sufficient evidence?!
So who pays for the 700 dollar mirror he broke? Why isnt he being charged with property damage?