I was talking about why the thread title says what it does and possible reasons for it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
St. Louis Police Officer Shoots, Kills Teen During Pedestrian Check
- Thread starter Black Mamba
- Start date
- Status
In most jurisdictions, officer have to buy their own weapon, uniforms, and equipment. The only thing the department usually provides is the Star/shield, car, radio, and the training. So most cops out there working security are wearing their own gear, minus the radio, and vehicle. Usually the vehicle they have belongs to the security company which looks like any unmarked cop car, sirens and all.
Chie Satonaka
Member
Oh I know. I was just making a general observation. Given what we know, and what's potentially being hidden, I don't think it was made in haste at all.
Related to that, "Pedestrian Check", eh? Pretty soon black folks are going to need to start wearing identification around their necks and see through pants.
Thank goodness for Smartphones. Wish someone would have gotten it on video.
Black Mamba
Member
I literally copy/pasted the article in the OP. It was new news at the time. Don't blame the messenger.
Rajack
Member
The guy had a 9mm Ruger and had gunpowder residue on his hand. This is an open and shut case and had absolutely fuckall to do with race. St. Louis City PD 3rd district is staffed by standup individuals, many of which I know and have had dealings with personally. They have their fair share of lazy do-nothing cops sure, but I've never met a 3rd district officer who was even close to trigger happy.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
After I read your comment, out of curiosity I Googled police officer shooting to see how many white people got shot by police recently. I found articles about black men, latino men, and not one white guy. Some of them had the victims' names withheld, so I suppose they could have coincidentally all been white, but somehow I doubt it.
I'm stating the obvious but America's got a serious problem.
I haven't seen anything that said that he had gunpowder residue as of yet? Could you link your source?
Rajack
Member
I have no online link for this, but it was mentioned during a report during the 5pm news on KTVI Fox 2.
Nirvana
Member
Man, it always seems so hard to find follow up information on these sorts of incidents. We get one click-bait headline that everyone hears about and then the following evidence is sort of swept under the rug. This goes for genuine cases of racial profiling and sensationalised headlines for the sake of public outcry.
It always seems that the onus is on the reader to find out the objective facts themselves, and that the truth behind any headline requires some form of commitment on the public's part. I suppose this is how Fox News gets away with its god-awful journalism.
tldr: Would be nice if news outlets reported the entirety of the facts, with updates on cases like this given an equal amount of attention to them as the original headline.
KTVI has some updated information on their website:
http://fox2now.com/2014/10/09/officer-involved-shooting-sparks-protests-in-south-st-louis/
However, if you believe that the police planted all of the physical evidence, I doubt it will convince you of anything.
No it won't. Nobody on this country gives a shit when black people die, and that means when black people try to give a shit they'll be put down ruthlessly and ignored by everyone else.
I honestly don't know how black people deal with this shit.
No personal bias here. No sir.
I've never seen any unmarked cop car at these security jobs. At Brookshires, at Walmart, at the movie theater it's always a cop car parked in a spot that's usually not even a parking spot. This is across a couple of states. As far as purchasing their own gear in "most" jurisdictions, citation needed.
Or if they knew they'd be prosecuted and punished for their actions, which they usually (though not always) are if the victim is white.
What you're referring to is most likely a police officer on special duty being hired by the company because it is a high crime area. This isn't the same as an off duty police officer that has a second job working security. Typically businesses will call up the local police department and request an officer during certain hours and pay the overtime rate or special duty rate to have an officer dedicated to their store.
What the guy you quoted is talking about is the security companies that typically buy retired police cars at the auction and use them for their security guards. This is quite common.
As for the purchasing the equipment, he's right. Usually only the larger city police departments outfit their officers with all their gear. The vast majority of departments are small towns, villages, and counties that don't have the funding to buy everything. Often times they will supply the uniform shirt and badge. Maybe the Kevlar vest, but usually not. And it's up to the officer to buy the rest.
Not only that, but a good portion of the officers that have to buy their own gear are working as a volunteer until they can get hired on at a bigger department.
My first department I worked for had 13 officers and a chief. The chief was a paid full time position(26k/year I think) and there were 3 officer paid full time positions making 9/hour. The other 10 officers were volunteers that had other full time jobs that weren't police jobs.
Sad to say that this is quite common. And the economy the last few years has resulted in layoffs and departments actually closing because they couldn't afford to keep operating. That leaves the county deputies to pick up the slack when they are already stretched too thin as it is.
I'm not really seeing the difference. If a private party is using government assets then that seems like a misappropriation either way which is my point. And I'm not too sure about these areas being high crime. The theaters especially weren't in high crime areas. They were just busy on the weekends. If this was "special duty" it still rubs me wrong that someone who's job is to keep the public safe is instead watching for shop lifters for some company using equipment that is government property. That's what private security firms are for... Or off duty officers using their own equipment.
And I reiterate the government property point because none of these anecdotes took place in tiny villages or tucked away towns. I still have yet to see the purchase your own gun info cited but I'll go along with it as it makes sense tiny towns would see them as a luxury rather than necessity. I also wouldn't really expect a volunteer to get the benefit of full tax payer support either.
This doesn't even appear to be a particularly controversial case.
A person with prior weapons charges is claimed to have a weapon, a weapon is recovered, and gunpowder residue is found.
In a general sense, I agree, it is possible for the police to frame an individual. On the other hand, I feel this represents an almost entire collapse of trust in police officers that we would consider such a possibility for what is otherwise such an open-and-shut case.
I'm not saying this collapse of trust isn't deserved, mind you. Or that it is. I'm just observing that you have to have very low trust in police to believe that this scenario was so intricately fabricated.
A person with prior weapons charges is claimed to have a weapon, a weapon is recovered, and gunpowder residue is found.
In a general sense, I agree, it is possible for the police to frame an individual. On the other hand, I feel this represents an almost entire collapse of trust in police officers that we would consider such a possibility for what is otherwise such an open-and-shut case.
I'm not saying this collapse of trust isn't deserved, mind you. Or that it is. I'm just observing that you have to have very low trust in police to believe that this scenario was so intricately fabricated.
Not too long ago we'd have treated people saying that kind of thing as conspiracy nuts.
Problem is that the cops have already made verifiably false claims and changed the story.
BronsonLee
Member
SteveMcqwark
Banned
How is it like Micheal Brown over again? Did Micheal brown have a sandwich?
Apparently no one did.
That also isn't uncommon, particularly when being pressured by the press to provide information as soon as possible.
Again, it doesn't mean there can't possibly be a conspiracy here. Nor am I diminishing the importance of the Michael Brown incident. I'm just pointing out that crossed wires when under pressure and intense media scrutiny is not unusual and isn't itself strong evidence of conspiracy.
SteveMcqwark
Banned
Because they found a gun does not mean he did not have a sandwich. But the witnesses do state he did not have a gun out so still...
Can you provide links to the conflicting information?
I have already read all of those tweets. That person doesn't have any sources from the police (other than twitter) and only says they changed their story.
They used http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Mom-of-man-killed-by-St-Louis-cop-He-was-unarmed-278665901.html
and https://twitter.com/SLMPD
as sources.
Those sources do not back up any of the claims about police changing their story.
So, do you have any real links? Maybe I missed it. Like a press release where they the police say he did X, and then a later one where they say he did Y?
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Who is Sean Jordan and why should he be viewed as credible? Why when posting his series of facts why does he not link to his source of the fact? Igoogled his Twitter and what I found was private, assuming I found the right one.
He lists all his sources at the end:
SOURCES USED:
St. Louis Police Department Twitter: https://twitter.com/SLMPD
Story on KSDK: http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crim...involved-shooting-in-south-st-louis/16948783/
Press Conference with Chief Dotson: http://www.ksdk.com/videos/news/crime/2014/10/09/16957183/
Story on KMOV: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Poli...ed-shooting-in-south-St-Louis--278602601.html
KMOV reports on Myers's mother's reaction: http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Mom-of-man-killed-by-St-Louis-cop-He-was-unarmed-278665901.html
Story on STLToday (St. Louis Post-Dispatch Website): http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_2d5a8c2a-97db-5cec-a477-1130d7d26f7e.html
Argus News @Rebelutionary_Z livestream archive:
http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/events/3424523
One of many past stories about Hi-Tech Security: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_29317505-0a58-55d7-a5b6-904a9dbc00d7.html
That is a really bad summary of events.
The story has stayed basically the same, and as yet I haven't seen any statements from actual witnesses. Apart from the guy who heard a lot of gunshots and arrived at the scene later.
He's equating neighbours with what the relatives said, who arrived at the scene later and at least some of what they were told doesn't seem accurate like the taser.
He wasn't armed seems to have come from the store owner who would have no reason to know he was armed, and his relatives who didn't believe he had one. Mistaking the sandwich for a gun seems to be conjecture based on the fact he bought a sandwich 10 minutes earlier, and was what his nephew said who again wasn't there.
There isn't enough to support an alternative narrative until we hear from actual witnesses to the shooting, but so far there isn't anything to really go against it.
A Twitter summary like this isn't helpful.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
I saw the series of links, I'm talking about linking a fact to the portion of the link that he found it it, not a here's ten links that I pulled this stuff from, good luck finding exactly what I'm referring to. I personally do not find that style of writing to be compelling whatsoever, it leads to easy misunderstsndings or manipulations. if you're going to attack someone for false statements and changing their story, then a series of links at the tail end of your whatever that is called, just doesn't cut it.
I agree his sources are inadequate given what he is trying to claim. This is part of the reason why I dislike twitter.
TheExecutive
Member
Of course people will take every police shooting and blow it up to hell and beyond. Make sure to have the facts from both sides before making fools out of yourselves.
Chie Satonaka
Member
Who looks foolish, exactly? The only thing I said is that I don't trust the official police narrative on the facts as they went down. I never said that the kid didn't deserve being fired on if he opened fire on the officer. I also said I have a problem with the idea of Pedestrian Checks, especially when done by off duty officers.
It's interesting to me that there are so many people in this thread who are taking what appears to be victory lap. It's a loss of life in a situation that could have been avoided one way or another. Justification of force doesn't somehow make that okay.
It's interesting to me that there are so many people in this thread who are taking what appears to be victory lap. It's a loss of life in a situation that could have been avoided one way or another. Justification of force doesn't somehow make that okay.
The violent death of a young man is always a tragedy.
Even if this young man fired on the officer, it is still a tragedy that he died.
I wish more people, doing their victory laps, and handing out high fives, understood this is the root of the problem. Justification of shooting people dead instead of being put through a justice system is the problem.
Saying "well see, it was a justified killing! HA! Told you to wait for the facts!!!!!" brings the problem right back to square one, for those affected by an abundant number of shootings. Justified or not.
Lonewolf_92
Member
The gun used was reported stolen Sept 26 according to the police, I'm assuming it has a serial number and that's how they know.
Some new info here I think. A video was released voluntarily by the Shaw Market. Apologies if this was already posted and I missed it.
New Info Here
New Info Here
CadetMahoney
Member
That what it sounds like to me too.
Some new info here I think. A video was released voluntarily by the Shaw Market. Apologies if this was already posted and I missed it.
New Info Here
This is a much better source. Clearly that lieutenant said he came from some bushes and there are none. Could be he was mistaken and was talking about that small tree in the images. Could be the police executed a black man for being black.
The security tape image I've seen, doesn't really rule out him having a gun IMO.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Victory lap? What about the drive-by posters saying "F the police"? Both sides have overreacted.
By drive by poster(s) you mean, POWERSPHERE? That doesn't make a complete a side, nor does it undermine the message of police shootings being a problem, as people don't get trials. So when people say that others are doing victory laps but forgetting that its a problem still, who would be the other side? Fuck all cops isn't part of any side. Are you just lumping in Fuck all cops with anyone with an opinion outside of it being justified and thats that..?
Help me out here, as I don't think "fuck all cops" is a side.
It's pretty silly to assume that people see a case that doesn't immediately pan out as "racist cop guns down unarmed teen" and believe that it means that institutional racism by law enforcement no longer exists. The only victory lap, I think, is in wanting people to, yes, wait for all the facts before crucifying every officer involved in a shooting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked