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

[Rebellious Fishermen]

I agree with the OP all but on why blacks are shot more. It is not necessarily because blacks are racially profiled, it is more because blacks are statistically more likely to commit a crime, thus they are racially profiled.

[The Sotoan Union]

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.

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 seems like you are referring to all police officers whenever you talk about the police. Assuming that you think that's a strawman because of the point about all police officers being evil, it's not a strawman because that is all you have been doing. You accuse all police officers of absuing their power. You accuse all police officers of having a "a serial killer, a bank robber, or anything like that" attitude towards people. You accuse all police officers of being so oppresive that legal action is necessary to defend yourself from them. That is your entire argument. I mean you literally just said that they need to be treated like wild animals.

And now I realize that you just don't understand. You cannot make these statements as facts without any actual evidence representative of all police officers to back them up. If all you can produce is isolated incidents and personal experiences, that's not enough. You are essentially just stating an opinion now, and providing incidents to reinforce why you have your opinion. I can see why you've developed your opinion. But your claims about all police officers aren't backed up by them at all.

[Laerod]

And now I realize that you just don't understand.

And I understand that you simply don't want to. I have no reason to argue with someone that would rather engage an army of straw because there literally is no point to debating someone that has inocculated themselves to counter arguments the way you have.

[Susurruses]

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".

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.

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 seems like you are referring to all police officers whenever you talk about the police. Assuming that you think that's a strawman because of the point about all police officers being evil, it's not a strawman because that is all you have been doing. You accuse all police officers of absuing their power. You accuse all police officers of having a "a serial killer, a bank robber, or anything like that" attitude towards people. You accuse all police officers of being so oppresive that legal action is necessary to defend yourself from them. That is your entire argument. I mean you literally just said that they need to be treated like wild animals.

And now I realize that you just don't understand. You cannot make these statements as facts without any actual evidence representative of all police officers to back them up. If all you can produce is isolated incidents and personal experiences, that's not enough. You are essentially just stating an opinion now, and providing incidents to reinforce why you have your opinion. I can see why you've developed your opinion. But your claims about all police officers aren't backed up by them at all.

You want sources and studies and statistics?

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/1170/

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releas ... 035663.pdf

http://www.civilrights.org/publications ... acial.html

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/46946_CH_3.pdf

If you'd like a snippet:
"One quarter of the 960 LAPD officers surveyed by the commission agreed that officers held a
racial bias toward minorities, and more than one quarter agreed that this racial bias could lead to
the use of excessive force"

Cops say that cops are racist and violent.
Do you still deny it's a pervasive known issue?

[Burleson]

That officer had every right to shoot him. It would be stupid and life threatening not to.

[Laerod]

That officer had every right to shoot him. It would be stupid and life threatening not to.

You should probably come forth as a witness if you were there like your statement implies you were.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

Funny because the cop was off duty. It doesn't matter whether or not he was doing what a cop should do because at that moment he was employed as a private security officer, not a police officer. There is a HUGE difference.

also chasing ppl is not illegal on public property for anyone

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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

who said he was running when firing his weapon

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

yea a whole lot of bullshit strawmen, thanks for your valuable contribution

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

stop with the bull nao plz?

[Upper America]

Are cops required to chase after people with weapons? Because he was drawing his weapon as he was running.

Good point. The victim was probably drawing his gun as self-defense. Considering how the police reputation in that area has been so badly tarnished, he probably thought the cop was going to shoot him regardless. I'd feel threatened too if a cop came out of a car and approached me if I was a minority in that area.

[Tekania]

Are cops required to chase after people with weapons? Because he was drawing his weapon as he was running.

Good point. The victim was probably drawing his gun as self-defense. Considering how the police reputation in that area has been so badly tarnished, he probably thought the cop was going to shoot him regardless. I'd feel threatened too if a cop came out of a car and approached me if I was a minority in that area.

Speculation as to what the man may have been doing, or the reasons they may have been drawing their weapon might have some relevance if this was a case where the man in question was the defendant in a criminal trial so as to cast doubt on the case. That, however, is not the case here.

[Ifreann]

Funny because the cop was off duty. It doesn't matter whether or not he was doing what a cop should do because at that moment he was employed as a private security officer, not a police officer. There is a HUGE difference.

also chasing ppl is not illegal on public property for anyone

It could be considered assault.

[Mizrad]

also chasing ppl is not illegal on public property for anyone

It could be considered assault.

Yes but the security officer [What I'm calling the cop from now on because that was his job at the time] may argue that he was doing his job considering he was probably supposed to protect that area. If you had the same job and saw a group of late-teens/young adults seeing you then sprinting away wouldn't you think that's a bit suspicious? Not saying you should chase them but to me that screams "Hey we just did something not good or we're going to and you look like somebody who will stop us so bye!". If the security officer didn't yell "stop" or "get back here" first then he definitely fucked up and it's probably his fault the kid opened fire but if somebody starts shooting at you then you should be allowed to shoot back. This isn't a case like in Ferguson or with Trayvon when nobody knows who attacked first and both kids were unarmed, this time the kid had a gun and started shooting. Of course this might not be true as this is only what the police said but I don't think they would be dumb enough to pull that card right off the bat.

On another note, I agree firing while sprinting after somebody is stupid and should only happen in movies. However if somebody starts trying to gun you down your only options are duck for cover or start shooting back because at that moment it becomes a life or death situation.

[Sternberg]

Urgh, while I would have to agree that we would have to wait until we hear more from both 'sides' of the story, I have a few questions of my own I would have liked to have asked the victim (hypothetically, as if he was still alive, and under the assumption that the department's story is being tentatively used as a general line of events):

1) What were you doing at the time that would cause you to bolt at the sight of a security guard?

2) Did the security officer in question ask you to stop or tried to explain that he just wanted to talk to you? In effect, was he overly aggressive in any way that would have warranted legitimate panic or concern for your life or well-being?

3) What were you doing with a concealed firearm on your person and why were you carrying it at the time of the incident? Was it loaded or unloaded?

4) Why did you even open fire on the officer in the first place?

In the absence of any more concrete answers for now, while I would have to agree that this matter didn't need to have ended in a 9mm-induced death, I feel as though the victim was an utter dolt to have been firing a gun at anyone to begin with.

[Ifreann]

Urgh, while I would have to agree that we would have to wait until we hear more from both 'sides' of the story, I have a few questions of my own I would have liked to have asked the victim (hypothetically, as if he was still alive):

1) What were you doing at the time that would cause you to bolt at the sight of a security guard?

2) Did the security officer in question ask you to stop or tried to explain that he just wanted to talk to you? In effect, was he overly aggressive in any way that would have warranted legitimate panic or concern for your life or well-being?

3) What were you doing with a concealed firearm on your person and why were you carrying it at the time of the incident? Was it loaded or unloaded?

4) Why did you even open fire on the officer in the first place?

So your questions to the deceased would all be based upon the assumption that what the security police guard officer said was entirely correct and accurate. I see now why you used scare quotes around "sides".

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

If the suspect fired a weapon at the police officer, there would be powder residue on his hands/clothes, as well as a firearm with his prints on it (unless he was wearing gloves) and shell casings at the scene.

[Sternberg]

So your questions to the deceased would all be based upon the assumption that what the security police guard officer said was entirely correct and accurate. I see now why you used scare quotes around "sides".

I had edited my post to clarify that, yes for the moment, I would assume that the security guard's testimony was the most complete. The problem is, simply put, we have very little (if any) concrete information to the contrary and only two witnesses (the victim's accompanying friends) who can testify either way.

I'd personally wouldn't discount a possibility that the cop either "jumped the gun" or opened fire on an unarmed civilian, but we simply do not have anything further, for now, that can prove either way. If the security officer DID preemptively open fire on a civilian and it turned out he was unarmed, then by all means have the officer face due process and punishment. But if what the officer testified to was correct, then the victim should not have had cause to open fire.

[Jamzmania]

Urgh, while I would have to agree that we would have to wait until we hear more from both 'sides' of the story, I have a few questions of my own I would have liked to have asked the victim (hypothetically, as if he was still alive):

1) What were you doing at the time that would cause you to bolt at the sight of a security guard?

2) Did the security officer in question ask you to stop or tried to explain that he just wanted to talk to you? In effect, was he overly aggressive in any way that would have warranted legitimate panic or concern for your life or well-being?

3) What were you doing with a concealed firearm on your person and why were you carrying it at the time of the incident? Was it loaded or unloaded?

4) Why did you even open fire on the officer in the first place?

So your questions to the deceased would all be based upon the assumption that what the security police guard officer said was entirely correct and accurate. I see now why you used scare quotes around "sides".

Until we have any actual reason to assume possible lying by the police, we have to give the benefit of the doubt.

[ISS Independence]

Why people enable police brutality so much? Do they feel safer when the officers are spreading terror and killing innocents because "lol, my mistake"?

[Gun Manufacturers]

1. He was not on duty. He was off-duty and working for a private security company. Because he wore his uniform off-duty he has been suspended, or so I hear.

2. Yes, in 99% of cases this holds true I guess.

3. Police typically use semi-automatic handguns. The most common type are chambered in a cartridge like 9mm Para, .40 S&W or .45 ACP and use double-stack mags that can generally hold up to 20 rounds.

Although the same type is also highly popular both for personal, private carry and private security firms, I don't know if he was carrying his service pistol at the time.

Thanks. I was under false impression most guns have only 12 rounds in a cartridge magazine.

FIXED for accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)

And it depends on the firearm and the magazine. A Glock 17 (9mm full size pistol) can take 10, 17 (or 19 with a +2 extension), and 31 (or 33 with a +2 extension)
round magazines. I have 4 factory standard capacity magazines for my Glock 17C (with the OEM +2 extensions, bringing the capacity to 19) and one factory 31 round high capacity magazine (again, with an OEM +2 extension,bringing the capacity to 33 rounds). A Springfield Armory XD9 full size pistol, OTOH, has a capacity of 16 rounds.

[Ifreann]

So your questions to the deceased would all be based upon the assumption that what the security police guard officer said was entirely correct and accurate. I see now why you used scare quotes around "sides".

Until we have any actual reason to assume possible lying by the police, we have to give the benefit of the doubt.

No, we don't.

[Susurruses]

So your questions to the deceased would all be based upon the assumption that what the security police guard officer said was entirely correct and accurate. I see now why you used scare quotes around "sides".

Until we have any actual reason to assume possible lying by the police, we have to give the benefit of the doubt.

There is actual reason to assume possible deliberate deception (or human error).

There is:
The known fact that LEOs are prejudiced towards minorities (admitted by cops themselves, backed by studies on the matter).
The known fact that LEOs tend to engage in excessive use of force including lethal force, specifically towards minorities. (admitted by cops themselves, again backed by statistics on disproportionate stop-&-search + disproportionate use of lethal force despite similar circumstances).
The recent evidence having come to light that a police department in the region apparently misrepresented evidence (claiming that a portion of footage showed a crime despite the owner of the footage insisting it did not, when the full video demonstrated the police claims were in fact blatantly false) and attempted to manipulate public opinion with such in the case of the shooting of another young black man. Of which there is solid proof of as part of public record.
The fact the DOJ has had to warn LEOs dealing with related protests three times to wear their name badges and not obscure them (because that is illegal of them, just so you know), conveying an extremely suspect image and a strong sense of ill intent on the part of those LEOs.


And of course it's somewhat easier from a legal standpoint to kill someone and claim they were a threat to your life or there was some other justified reason (especially when one is a LEO) than it is to deal with a living defendant presenting their own version of the story.

I do not believe it is at all reasonable to assume that the version of events we are being told by police in this instance is accurate.
I would believe that at the very least it is extremely biased and involves at least some 'favorable presentation' of the facts.
(Was anyone else ever told to consider sources and weigh evidence? & the importance of identifying bias? Do they teach that in school still?)

There does need to be more solid evidence presented, but based on what there is and where it came from.. there is none whatsoever that could be deemed unbiased and incontrovertible, and it is thus a leap of faith to assume the claims of the perpetrator and his associated organisation are 100% true.
Either that is admitted and waiting takes place, or you've already picked a side and are simply attempting to present yourself as fair/rational/reasonable.
(Though it was somewhat predictable people would do that, given the OP.)

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

What is a "police gun"? What precludes his ability to carry more than one magazine?

[Imperializt Russia]

I agree with the OP all but on why blacks are shot more. It is not necessarily because blacks are racially profiled, it is more because blacks are statistically more likely to commit a crime, thus they are racially profiled.

Which fuels a literally vicious cycle.