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

[Inzijard]

17 shots while running, sheesh, I'm surprised at the ostensible lack of collateral damage there.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Sounds like the victim's family is in denial.

It's pretty normal for police to back up their own officers on judgement calls, like if an officer THOUGHT someone was armed, but then it turned out the officer was mistaken, the department will say they had a legitimate reason for thinking the suspect was armed and/or dangerous. It's much less common for them to outright lie, like saying a suspect had a gun and fired at an officer when the suspect was actually unarmed.

We'll see what comes out of the investigation, though.

[San-Silvacian]

17 shots while running, sheesh, I'm surprised at the ostensible lack of collateral damage there.

These are 9x19mm rounds.

They aren't aren't going to be ripping though walls and kill entire families.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

If a cop defending himself turns this into another nationwide martyr protest I'm fucking moving to Germany.

Why would they want you.

Because I'm a sensible contributing member of society.

[Inzijard]

17 shots while running, sheesh, I'm surprised at the ostensible lack of collateral damage there.

These are 9x19mm rounds.

They aren't aren't going to be ripping though walls and kill entire families.

Never said they would, but there are generally pedestrians and cars in cities which do not have the luxury of brick walls.

[Prezelly]

Lesson here, don't shoot at police officers.

[Lord Nuke Is So Kewl]

The Police have every right to execute dangerous criminals. If the criminal pulled a gun, he deserves to die as he is a threat. The Police safety is more important then criminal rights.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sounding like it was justified. Unfortunately, due to a history of unjustified police actions in that area, the department has a credibility problem, meaning that the police are unlikely to be believed.

[Czeckolutania]

The Police have every right to execute dangerous criminals. If the criminal pulled a gun, he deserves to die as he is a threat. The Police safety is more important then criminal rights.

Actually that's not true, we even have to right to defend ourselves from the police, and if the police officer dies in te process it's the equivlent of manslaughter (granted this is only in the case of a false arrest.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The Police have every right to execute dangerous criminals. If the criminal pulled a gun, he deserves to die as he is a threat. The Police safety is more important then criminal rights.

No, the police do not have the right to execute dangerous criminals. Execution cannot take place without due process. The police do have a right (and a duty) to kill in self-defense, or to protect innocents from immediate danger, which seems to be what happened here.

[The balkens]

The Police have every right to execute dangerous criminals. If the criminal pulled a gun, he deserves to die as he is a threat. The Police safety is more important then criminal rights.

No, the police do not have the right to execute dangerous criminals. Execution cannot take place without due process. The police do have a right (and a duty) to kill in self-defense, or to protect innocents from immediate danger, which seems to be what happened here.

My thoughts as well. seems justified.

[Inzijard]

The Police have every right to execute dangerous criminals. If the criminal pulled a gun, he deserves to die as he is a threat. The Police safety is more important then criminal rights.

No, the police do not have the right to execute dangerous criminals. Execution cannot take place without due process. The police do have a right (and a duty) to kill in self-defense, or to protect innocents from immediate danger, which seems to be what happened here.

This. Execution is not the same as lethal force in self-defense. One of these is a rational response to immediate perceived (thus subjective) danger, the other is execution.

[Empire of Akebulan]

THe race card you say;

If I say something like "fuck the holocaust" I'm the bad guy as I'm supposed to forget about slavery, lack of freedom afterwards until the 1960s (when we started fighting back) and being told we are not shit constantly by every media outlet (the worst being Viacoms' BET) to THIS point where the problem of being shot by cops for nothing is only an issue because of the proliferation of video?
I guess you're right. Blacks deserved our holocaust, our rampant incarceration (for crimes whites get wrist-slaps for), for buying chips/skittles/soda and having more drug dealers & criminals even though we don't.

Race card. Works every time.

[Empire of Akebulan]

Why would they want you.

Because I'm a sensible contributing member of society.

If a cop is defending himself against teenagers with no criminal history with their hands in the air (which is the majority of the time) good luck with finding friends in Germany.

[Inzijard]

Because I'm a sensible contributing member of society.

If a cop is defending himself against teenagers with no criminal history with their hands in the air (which is the majority of the time) good luck with finding friends in Germany.

The criminal history is irrelevant. In the moment you don't necessarily have time to run a background check, or even identify them, and it doesn't mean anything to begin with. Were his hands in the air? Was he threatening the officer? That is what really matters in this circumstance, not who or what he was.

[The Sotoan Union]

No. It means that his views are his own and are not representative of the LAPD, or all American police officers as you were stating.

I mean that's such an absolute statement. Hundreds of thousands of police in America, and you're saying they act like this because one person acts like this.

One? You're joking, right? I've seen that attitude in action all over the place. Dutta has just done us the favor of spelling it out.

Now you're implying this off-duty cop had the necessary resources, initiative and forethought to single-handedly (or perhaps helped by other off duty cop friends?) plant a gun and empty cases, possibly also fire "fake shots" for bullets to later come up as if the alleged assailant had fired "their" weapon, and also possibly plant fake fingerprints on the planted gun, all the while avoiding contamination with his own fingerprints, and all under the eyes and ears of by-passers. Pretty far-fetched, don't you think?

You're claiming that he wouldn't benefit from the blue code of silence. This is wrong. There is a culture of not fucking over your fellow cops even when they absolutely deserve it, and a cover up by this guy would be a hypothetical example of an act where he'd benefit from it. Keeping silent and letting things slide creates an environment where planting evidence becomes possible. If you know that the people investigating your shooting are on your side they encourage you to push the limits on that.

I'm not saying he has done anything of the sort, but given the track record of cops in the past, the rampant abuse of power that goes on, and the tendency of cops to get very defensive when their own get accused, it is unfortunately not something that can be ruled out.

You're joking right? You think that the testimony of one police officer is valid proof that the entire American police system behaves like this? You have to do better than one testimony, because this can be dismissed as an isolated incident.

How about a study on police officers. A survey. A report by researchers. But all you have provided is the testimony of one police officer and you are trying to say that is evidence that all police officers behave like this. That isn't acceptable.

People are individuals and not every police officer is going to think the same way. But more importantly this isn't valid enough evidence to attribute behaviours to all police officers, and wouldn't be taken seriously by any academic analyses.

[-The West Coast-]

Of course the kid wasn't armed! Of course, of course, of course. It's always the cops fault no matter how clear cut it is, I keep forgetting.

If "The police say so" counts as clear cut to you when has it ever not been clear cut?

Contrary to popular belief not every cop is corrupt, racist slime that shoots to kill when dealing with a minority in an area stricken with crime. If the policeman was fired on, and forced to return fire to kill the aggressor, why are we debating this? He killed him in justified self-defense. The only reason this has reached a level where people know about it is because the dead man was black and it was in St. Louis.

[Laerod]

One? You're joking, right? I've seen that attitude in action all over the place. Dutta has just done us the favor of spelling it out.

You're claiming that he wouldn't benefit from the blue code of silence. This is wrong. There is a culture of not fucking over your fellow cops even when they absolutely deserve it, and a cover up by this guy would be a hypothetical example of an act where he'd benefit from it. Keeping silent and letting things slide creates an environment where planting evidence becomes possible. If you know that the people investigating your shooting are on your side they encourage you to push the limits on that.

I'm not saying he has done anything of the sort, but given the track record of cops in the past, the rampant abuse of power that goes on, and the tendency of cops to get very defensive when their own get accused, it is unfortunately not something that can be ruled out.

You're joking right? You think that the testimony of one police officer is valid proof that the entire American police system behaves like this? You have to do better than one testimony, because this can be dismissed as an isolated incident.

Is reading that difficult? I clearly stated that this was not based on one statement alone, but that it backs up various observations I have personally made or that have been documented. I've personally been lied to by a Virginia cop that felt it was more important to scare college students into admitting some form of wrongdoing than to be worthy of trust. There's a lengthy video of police abusing their powers in a relatively benign way:

Here's a video of a guy that got some minor shit pulled on him by some cops (and considering how much he was poking the bear, it's a bit surprising he got away with nothing more than false charges). It's rather long, so I'll point to different minute marks that support what I'm getting at (all of it is subtitled and appears to be accurate, in case audio is not an option):

1:00 - The cops start searching his car and he objects.
2:35 - The cops rant about how the guy could be "a serial killer, a bank robber, or anything like that," to justify an illegal search of his car.

It's overly long and goes into the shit the guy deals with while fighting the case with the authorities. I strongly recommend listening to the frank advice prosecutor Greenwood gives starting at 14:07 if you don't have time to watch it all.

Bottom line is, though, cops do all sorts of shit, legal or illegal, because they feel justified on account of that "you might be a serial killer" attitude.

More proof? If cops overstepping their bounds weren't so fucking common, legal advice on what they can and can't get away with wouldn't be either.

How about a study on police officers. A survey. A report by researchers. But all you have provided is the testimony of one police officer and you are trying to say that is evidence that all police officers behave like this. That isn't acceptable.

How about no? This isn't some problem that can be fought with statistics. This is a perception problem based on continued and sufficiently widespread abuse. A miniscule fraction of the police force or of any given officer's behavior being bad is already too much. The relative amount is factually irrelevant.

[Laerod]

If "The police say so" counts as clear cut to you when has it ever not been clear cut?

Contrary to popular belief not every cop is corrupt, racist slime that shoots to kill when dealing with a minority in an area stricken with crime. If the policeman was fired on, and forced to return fire to kill the aggressor, why are we debating this? He killed him in justified self-defense. The only reason this has reached a level where people know about it is because the dead man was black and it was in St. Louis.

Because it's an "if" and because of the context all of this is happening in.

[The Sotoan Union]

You're joking right? You think that the testimony of one police officer is valid proof that the entire American police system behaves like this? You have to do better than one testimony, because this can be dismissed as an isolated incident.

Is reading that difficult? I clearly stated that this was not based on one statement alone, but that it backs up various observations I have personally made or that have been documented. I've personally been lied to by a Virginia cop that felt it was more important to scare college students into admitting some form of wrongdoing than to be worthy of trust. There's a lengthy video of police abusing their powers in a relatively benign way:

Here's a video of a guy that got some minor shit pulled on him by some cops (and considering how much he was poking the bear, it's a bit surprising he got away with nothing more than false charges). It's rather long, so I'll point to different minute marks that support what I'm getting at (all of it is subtitled and appears to be accurate, in case audio is not an option):

1:00 - The cops start searching his car and he objects.
2:35 - The cops rant about how the guy could be "a serial killer, a bank robber, or anything like that," to justify an illegal search of his car.

It's overly long and goes into the shit the guy deals with while fighting the case with the authorities. I strongly recommend listening to the frank advice prosecutor Greenwood gives starting at 14:07 if you don't have time to watch it all.

Bottom line is, though, cops do all sorts of shit, legal or illegal, because they feel justified on account of that "you might be a serial killer" attitude.

More proof? If cops overstepping their bounds weren't so fucking common, legal advice on what they can and can't get away with wouldn't be either.

How about a study on police officers. A survey. A report by researchers. But all you have provided is the testimony of one police officer and you are trying to say that is evidence that all police officers behave like this. That isn't acceptable.

How about no? This isn't some problem that can be fought with statistics. This is a perception problem based on continued and sufficiently widespread abuse. A miniscule fraction of the police force or of any given officer's behavior being bad is already too much. The relative amount is factually irrelevant.

You are allowing personal experiences as basis for absolute statements on people you've never met? That's ridiculous. If a cop is an ass to you, you are essentially saying that all cops are asses because they all must be the same as that one individual. You can never say that with any degree of accuracy.

A few isolated incidents still aren't proof. You know what would be proof, statistics. Statistics are necessary to prove something like this because statistics are what you use when you make absolute statements about hundreds of thousands of people. A few isolated incidents about bad police officers don't say anything more than a few isolated incidents about police officers going above and beyond the line of duty. Such experiences could lead to forming a personal opinion, but you are making a statement. You are saying that because less than 100 police officer have commited crimes, all police officers are evil. That is not how you back up such a statement. In order to make such absolute statements about hundreds of thousands of police officers, you need data representative of hundreds of thousands of police officers.

[Empire of Akebulan]

Every cop is NOT a racist shitty person. Unfortunately you can't tell by the actions of his compatriots that would go mute at court even if they knew that particular murdering cop IS a racist, wife beating, puppy-drowning asshole. So yes, we can assume as they assume me to be carrying firearms, drugs, etc despite the fact that white kids are found with these 7 times more often.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If "The police say so" counts as clear cut to you when has it ever not been clear cut?

Contrary to popular belief not every cop is corrupt, racist slime that shoots to kill when dealing with a minority in an area stricken with crime. If the policeman was fired on, and forced to return fire to kill the aggressor, why are we debating this? He killed him in justified self-defense. The only reason this has reached a level where people know about it is because the dead man was black and it was in St. Louis.

Where is this a popular belief? Nobody is saying that every cop is like that. However, it seems foolish to deny that there is a culture of racism in certain police departments.

[Laerod]

You are allowing personal experiences as basis for absolute statements on people you've never met? That's ridiculous. If a cop is an ass to you, you are essentially saying that all cops are asses because they all must be the same as that one individual. You can never say that with any degree of accuracy.

I can do even better: When it comes to wild foxes, I don't even base my behavior on personal experience, never having been bitten once. I still treat them like each and every one of them might have rabies because it's the sensible thing to do. A fraction of American cops runs around with an attitude that makes them feel like they get to do whatever the fuck they want because I "don't know what they might have heard on dispatch".

A few isolated incidents still aren't proof. You know what would be proof, statistics. Statistics are necessary to prove something like this because statistics are what you use when you make absolute statements about hundreds of thousands of people. A few isolated incidents about bad police officers don't say anything more than a few isolated incidents about police officers going above and beyond the line of duty. Such experiences could lead to forming a personal opinion, but you are making a statement. You are saying that because less than 100 police officer have commited crimes, all police officers are evil. That is not how you back up such a statement. In order to make such absolute statements about hundreds of thousands of police officers, you need data representative of hundreds of thousands of police officers.

Oh, bullshit. Take your strawman and stuff it in a wheatfield. I've been pointing out, time and time again, why American cops need to be treated like muggers or potentially rabid animals. Never have I once said that all of them are like that, but very specifically that all of them need to be treated like that. This comes from personal experience, stories related by friends that used to investigate allegations of police misconduct in New York City, videos, and that fucking editorial where Sunnil Dutta spells out the mentality that gets certain cops to lie to you and to illegally search your car. Because they think you're a fucking criminal until they're certain you're not and they have the power and authority to kill you or greviously injure you without having to face consequences for being wrong too often.

[Ifreann]

Why would they want you.

Because I'm a sensible contributing member of society.

Whose response to a protest he didn't agree with was to move across the ocean to a non-English speaking country, as opposed to turning off the news. So maybe not sensible as most people would understand it.

---

The Police have every right to execute dangerous criminals. If the criminal pulled a gun, he deserves to die as he is a threat. The Police safety is more important then criminal rights.

The police don't have the right to execute anyone, ever.

---

If "The police say so" counts as clear cut to you when has it ever not been clear cut?

Contrary to popular belief not every cop is corrupt, racist slime that shoots to kill when dealing with a minority in an area stricken with crime. If the policeman was fired on, and forced to return fire to kill the aggressor, why are we debating this?

Because we don't know if he was fired on and returned fire in self defence. We know that someone is dead, and that a cop did it, and that the cop says that he did nothing wrong. Again, if that's enough for you to call it clear cut, then when is it ever not? Has it ever happened in the US that a cop has killed someone, then put their hands up and said "I was wrong. I had no justification to shoot that person. Take my badge and gun and arrest me."?

He killed him in justified self-defense.

Allegedly.

The only reason this has reached a level where people know about it is because the dead man was black and it was in St. Louis.

Yeah, you'd swear the US had spent the last 200 years shitting on black people to varying, usually decreasing degrees and this had lead to some social issues around race.

[The Nation of Pen Island]

patrolling the historic Shaw neighborhood in his police uniform for a private security company

Am I reading this right? If he as in a a police uniform then he should have been on duty. If he was not on duty, why was he in a uniform?

Also you don't shoot at uniformed cops ever. You also do not run from cops.

Also, how many bullet does a police gun hold?

It depends. They don't all use the same type of pistol.