18 yr old shoots at off-duty St. Louis cop, gets killed

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Storage could be solved by automatization and strict access control, or even not allowing deletion at all regardless of "security clearance" before a set amount of time through the software itself.

Oh, it most definitely can be solved. It just hasn't been, as far as I've heard.

OK.

Umm.. again, I think that you thought "protest" meant something I did not want it to mean , although I admit I am to blame for the confusion.

[Laerod]

The investigation is ongoing. You know, the case. It's not closed. The case is ongoing. It is being investigated. The investigation is ongoing.

Maybe you can't read? Let me try this again: He. Shot. At. A. Cop. And. The. Cop. Shot. Back.

The End. Case closed. Do I need to spell it out for you?

I can read. Can you? The case is under investigation, as in whether the guy shot at the cop is being determined. This is what happens (or should happen) in nations that keep their police forces accountable.

The investigation is ongoing. In English, this means that the case is not closed.

[Ifreann]

Guy was carrying a gun, started shooting at a cop, cop shot back, did his job. Enough said. There is no racial profiling here.

Isn't there? How do you know he was carrying a gun? How do you know he started shooting at a cop? Because the cops say so? Cos the cops say a lot of shit, and pretty much all of it paints them as being in the right.

---

Justified shooting. Case closed. Move along.

This is why you aren't a detective. Or lawyer. Or crazy rich person who wears silly outfits while beating up random people on the streets of Gotham.

---

I'm sick and tired of hearing how he was a "good boy", and a "victim". The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Newspaper) reports that the deceased was wearing an ankle bracelet due to a previous gun related offense. He was out on bail awaiting a trial in November. His uncle needs to accept the fact that you can't produce shell casings, and bullet holes with just a "sandwich".

Here's the article if you want to read it yourself

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... 26f7e.html

It upsets you that people would rather not think ill of their loved ones? Do you not have any family or something? Were you raised by wolves?

[Bratislavskaya]

Finally. An actually justified shooting of a black man by Police in the US.

[Sdaeriji]

The investigation is ongoing. You know, the case. It's not closed. The case is ongoing. It is being investigated. The investigation is ongoing.

Maybe you can't read? Let me try this again: He. Shot. At. A. Cop. And. The. Cop. Shot. Back.

The End. Case closed. Do I need to spell it out for you?

Could you spell it out for me?

[Threlizdun]

Finally. An actually justified shooting of a black man by Police in the US.

The case is under in investigation to determine what actually happened, though you sound almost as if you have been craving this.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Again, police doesn't have much if any reason to cover up for an off duty cop.

And I have 2 theories: even if the family knew he was armed, they would still claim he was not ; and it's also very possible they were simply unaware.

Regardless of this the problem isn't with parents thinking well of or even covering up for their children, which is to be expected, but people claiming these were "witnesses" when they very clearly were not.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Justified shooting. Case closed. Move along.

The investigation is ongoing...

When one is shot on, it is appropriate retaliation to fire back. They can keep investigating all they want but that principle won't change.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The investigation is ongoing...

When one is shot on, it is appropriate retaliation to fire back. They can keep investigating all they want but that principle won't change.

No one's trying to change that, or no one sane for that matter. The question is whether or not he was actually armed and whether or not he actually fired at the off duty cop.

[Sdaeriji]

The investigation is ongoing...

When one is shot on, it is appropriate retaliation to fire back. They can keep investigating all they want but that principle won't change.

Unless, in their investigation, they find out that the cop was not actually shot at first. Which is kind of the point of investigating, yeah?

[Threlizdun]

Again, police doesn't have much if any reason to cover up for an off duty cop.

And I have 2 theories: even if the family knew he was armed, they would still claim he was not ; and it's also very possible they were simply unaware.

Regardless of this the problem isn't with parents thinking well of or even covering up for their children, which is to be expected, but people claiming these were "witnesses" when they very clearly were not.

Why would you presume police have no reason to cover up for an off duty cop? They still know the individual and have a strong sense of camaraderie with them. If yet another unarmed black man was killed by the police then it will obviously reflect terribly upon them, so they absolutely have interest in making sure it doesn't appear as though that was the case.

[Ifreann]

Again, police doesn't have much if any reason to cover up for an off duty cop.

They have as much reason to cover for an off-duty cop as for an on-duty cop.

---

The investigation is ongoing...

When one is shot on, it is appropriate retaliation to fire back. They can keep investigating all they want but that principle won't change.

And the investigation may find evidence suggesting that the security guard in a cop's uniform wasn't "shot on".

[Laerod]

The investigation is ongoing...

When one is shot on, it is appropriate retaliation to fire back. They can keep investigating all they want but that principle won't change.

Yeah, and the investigation is intended to show whether the cop's account is accurate rather than a lie. It's unfortunate that a cop's word can't be taken for granted, but, well, blame the cops for that.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

When one is shot on, it is appropriate retaliation to fire back. They can keep investigating all they want but that principle won't change.

Unless, in their investigation, they find out that the cop was not actually shot at first. Which is kind of the point of investigating, yeah?

Hopefully there are security cameras that caught it because otherwise it will be hard to gather anything concrete.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

When one is shot on, it is appropriate retaliation to fire back. They can keep investigating all they want but that principle won't change.

Yeah, and the investigation is intended to show whether the cop's account is accurate rather than a lie. It's unfortunate that a cop's word can't be taken for granted, but, well, blame the cops for that.

The only problem is I fail to see how the evidence can be any more than the cop's word against the eye witnesses word, unless a camera caught it.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Again, police doesn't have much if any reason to cover up for an off duty cop.

And I have 2 theories: even if the family knew he was armed, they would still claim he was not ; and it's also very possible they were simply unaware.

Regardless of this the problem isn't with parents thinking well of or even covering up for their children, which is to be expected, but people claiming these were "witnesses" when they very clearly were not.

Why would you presume police have no reason to cover up for an off duty cop? They still know the individual and have a strong sense of camaraderie with them. If yet another unarmed black man was killed by the police then it will obviously reflect terribly upon them, so they absolutely have interest in making sure it doesn't appear as though that was the case.

The police does this more to allow continued abuses and cover up their asses legally than PR, because most abuses eventually surface, even if they're not officially acknowledged.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Again, police doesn't have much if any reason to cover up for an off duty cop.

They have as much reason to cover for an off-duty cop as for an on-duty cop.

No. This is simply dishonest.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Yeah, and the investigation is intended to show whether the cop's account is accurate rather than a lie. It's unfortunate that a cop's word can't be taken for granted, but, well, blame the cops for that.

The only problem is I fail to see how the evidence can be any more than the cop's word against the eye witnesses word, unless a camera caught it.

It really isn't much more than that taking in account evidence planting.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The only problem is I fail to see how the evidence can be any more than the cop's word against the eye witnesses word, unless a camera caught it.

It really isn't much more than that taking in account evidence planting.

Exactly, which are both relatively poor pieces of evidence. The cop could of course be lying to cover his own ass, but the public could also lie because of the recent rise in anger towards the police. They could also simply not have seen much and so give a bad report on it entirely unintentionally.

[Laerod]

Yeah, and the investigation is intended to show whether the cop's account is accurate rather than a lie. It's unfortunate that a cop's word can't be taken for granted, but, well, blame the cops for that.

The only problem is I fail to see how the evidence can be any more than the cop's word against the eye witnesses word, unless a camera caught it.

Nothing I've read seems to indicate any witnesses present contradicting the cop's story.

They have as much reason to cover for an off-duty cop as for an on-duty cop.

No. This is simply dishonest.

The blue code of silence is a sort of brotherhood. Whether he's off-duty or not isn't likely to matter because the issue is he's a cop, a fellow brother in law enforcement.

[Ifreann]

They have as much reason to cover for an off-duty cop as for an on-duty cop.

No. This is simply dishonest.

It simply isn't. A police force still looks bad if an off-duty officer kills someone for no good reason, because they accepted that person into the force in the first place. What does it say about their ability to keep killers off the streets if they gave this hypothetical killer a badge and a gun? How can we trust police officers if they cannot identify a murderer in their own ranks? Were warning signs overlooked or ignored? And other talking points of that nature.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The only problem is I fail to see how the evidence can be any more than the cop's word against the eye witnesses word, unless a camera caught it.

Nothing I've read seems to indicate any witnesses present contradicting the cop's story.

No. This is simply dishonest.

The blue code of silence is a sort of brotherhood. Whether he's off-duty or not isn't likely to matter because the issue is he's a cop, a fellow brother in law enforcement.

There was one article on stltoday.com that had some woman saying the victim just bought a sandwich and the cop searched him, tazed him, and then proceeded to shoot him 16 times. Now, obviously taht is an extreme case and obvious lie, but I am sure many eye witness accounts will not be reliable.

[Laerod]

Nothing I've read seems to indicate any witnesses present contradicting the cop's story.

The blue code of silence is a sort of brotherhood. Whether he's off-duty or not isn't likely to matter because the issue is he's a cop, a fellow brother in law enforcement.

There was one article on stltoday.com that had some woman saying the victim just bought a sandwich and the cop searched him, tazed him, and then proceeded to shoot him 16 times. Now, obviously taht is an extreme case and obvious lie, but I am sure many eye witness accounts will not be reliable.

The presumption of innocence legally counts for cops too.

[Mavorpen]

Cops don't have a great track record when it comes to this, so I honestly don't have a very good reason to believe the cop's story right now.

[Avenio]

No. This is simply dishonest.

It simply isn't. A police force still looks bad if an off-duty officer kills someone for no good reason, because they accepted that person into the force in the first place. What does it say about their ability to keep killers off the streets if they gave this hypothetical killer a badge and a gun? How can we trust police officers if they cannot identify a murderer in their own ranks? Were warning signs overlooked or ignored? And other talking points of that nature.

He wasn't just off-duty, either. He was working as a private security contractor. The question of whether or not he was allowed to have his service weapon on him while holding another job or if he was allowed to conduct searches on a public street while working in that capacity.