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

[Ifreann]

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?

Knowing more than people is fun.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

Knowing more than people is fun.

I took from this that he doubted the police's version of events partly on the basis of the number of rounds fired by the officer.

[Laerod]

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.

A court does, but do we? "Innocent until proven guilty" is a decent basis for criminal law and proceedings, but we are talking about a cop here. This is someone that's been trusted with guns and the legal power to detain, arrest, and kill people in the line of duty. It's not unjustified to hold someone that uses lethal force to a higher standard than "we can't conclusively prove you did nothing wrong".

[Spirit of Hope]

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

A court does, but do we? "Guilty until proven innocent" is a decent basis for criminal law and proceedings, but we are talking about a cop here. This is someone that's been trusted with guns and the legal power to detain, arrest, and kill people in the line of duty. It's not unjustified to hold someone that uses lethal force to a higher standard than "we can't conclusively prove you did nothing wrong".

First I think you mean "innocent until proven guilty" at the beginning, i.e. punishment will not be given out until a determination of guilt.

While we can, and should, hold LOE's to a higher standard we can't punish them before we know what happens, and if we can't determine what happens we shouldn't go around handing punishments. Doing so would just create a lot of problems.

Plus a quick follow up of the links shows that a gun was recovered from teenager who was shot. So there is evidence to the officers statement, and we should wait to find out more information instead of blaming someone without all of the facts.

[Ifreann]

A court does, but do we? "Guilty until proven innocent" is a decent basis for criminal law and proceedings, but we are talking about a cop here. This is someone that's been trusted with guns and the legal power to detain, arrest, and kill people in the line of duty. It's not unjustified to hold someone that uses lethal force to a higher standard than "we can't conclusively prove you did nothing wrong".

First I think you mean "innocent until proven guilty" at the beginning, i.e. punishment will not be given out until a determination of guilt.

While we can, and should, hold LOE's to a higher standard we can't punish them before we know what happens, and if we can't determine what happens we shouldn't go around handing punishments. Doing so would just create a lot of problems.

But we can sit here on the internet and be sceptical of the police's account of one of their fellows' actions all we want. Because we're not a court, and we can't hand out any kind of punishment.

[Spirit of Hope]

First I think you mean "innocent until proven guilty" at the beginning, i.e. punishment will not be given out until a determination of guilt.

While we can, and should, hold LOE's to a higher standard we can't punish them before we know what happens, and if we can't determine what happens we shouldn't go around handing punishments. Doing so would just create a lot of problems.

But we can sit here on the internet and be sceptical of the police's account of one of their fellows' actions all we want. Because we're not a court, and we can't hand out any kind of punishment.

True, but we also don't have access to any of the evidence so our opinions will be ill informed, and may be based on incorrect information. So being skeptical is one thing, getting aggressive with police at the scene or otherwise behaving like the cop acted improperly is wrong.

[Ifreann]

But we can sit here on the internet and be sceptical of the police's account of one of their fellows' actions all we want. Because we're not a court, and we can't hand out any kind of punishment.

True, but we also don't have access to any of the evidence so our opinions will be ill informed, and may be based on incorrect information. So being skeptical is one thing, getting aggressive with police at the scene or otherwise behaving like the cop acted improperly is wrong.

Given that we're most of us not in St. Louis we're not in a position to get aggressive with the police officers there. Or are you saying that we shouldn't be saying mean things about them?

[Laerod]

A court does, but do we? "Guilty until proven innocent" is a decent basis for criminal law and proceedings, but we are talking about a cop here. This is someone that's been trusted with guns and the legal power to detain, arrest, and kill people in the line of duty. It's not unjustified to hold someone that uses lethal force to a higher standard than "we can't conclusively prove you did nothing wrong".

First I think you mean "innocent until proven guilty" at the beginning, i.e. punishment will not be given out until a determination of guilt.

Ugh, yeah. My bad. I just donated blood and I'm a bit woozy.

While we can, and should, hold LOE's to a higher standard we can't punish them before we know what happens, and if we can't determine what happens we shouldn't go around handing punishments. Doing so would just create a lot of problems.

Here's the thing: Punishment isn't the point. Maintaining a trustworthy police force is. I have no problem considering letting a cop go whose integrity appears dubious, even if there's not enough evidence to convict them of anything. The integrity of the police force as a whole and the trust it needs to receive from the public to do its job are more important.

Plus a quick follow up of the links shows that a gun was recovered from teenager who was shot. So there is evidence to the officers statement, and we should wait to find out more information instead of blaming someone without all of the facts.

Mind, I haven't actually blamed anyone. I'm pointing out that there are reasons why the officer's statements and the fact that a gun was recovered can still happen if the cop was lying. It's unfortunate that cops have planted evidence before and the fact that their word tends to be believed over that of a defendant when it comes to a trial has lowered inhibitions regarding lying and perjury.

[Spirit of Hope]

True, but we also don't have access to any of the evidence so our opinions will be ill informed, and may be based on incorrect information. So being skeptical is one thing, getting aggressive with police at the scene or otherwise behaving like the cop acted improperly is wrong.

Given that we're most of us not in St. Louis we're not in a position to get aggressive with the police officers there. Or are you saying that we shouldn't be saying mean things about them?

Mostly I'm saying I think the people at the scene were in the wrong. Though I do think criticizing the police without information, especially since this looks like a justified shooting, is wrong. Plus I was originally responding to the idea of forcing an officer to prove his innocence or be punished, which I find is a disturbing idea.

[The Nihilistic view]

If the kid did shoot at the policeman then fair enough.

[Spirit of Hope]

First I think you mean "innocent until proven guilty" at the beginning, i.e. punishment will not be given out until a determination of guilt.

Ugh, yeah. My bad. I just donated blood and I'm a bit woozy.

While we can, and should, hold LOE's to a higher standard we can't punish them before we know what happens, and if we can't determine what happens we shouldn't go around handing punishments. Doing so would just create a lot of problems.

Here's the thing: Punishment isn't the point. Maintaining a trustworthy police force is. I have no problem considering letting a cop go whose integrity appears dubious, even if there's not enough evidence to convict them of anything. The integrity of the police force as a whole and the trust it needs to receive from the public to do its job are more important.

Plus a quick follow up of the links shows that a gun was recovered from teenager who was shot. So there is evidence to the officers statement, and we should wait to find out more information instead of blaming someone without all of the facts.

Mind, I haven't actually blamed anyone. I'm pointing out that there are reasons why the officer's statements and the fact that a gun was recovered can still happen if the cop was lying. It's unfortunate that cops have planted evidence before and the fact that their word tends to be believed over that of a defendant when it comes to a trial has lowered inhibitions regarding lying and perjury.

Multiple problems with this.
1). Most cops don't plant evidence, they may racially profile, fill quotas, and push the bounds of legal stops and searches but planting evidence is rare. It is also rather hard to do, this case being a great example: the shooter would need a second gun that could not be traced to him and that was perfectly clean of his fingerprints and DNA. Not an easy thing to accomplish, plus questions would be raised when during the investigation no one could figure out where the shot person got the gun.
2). What you are proposing endangers the cops and civilians. In this situation the low was underfire, and you are saying he should loose his job because he returned fire, and he can't prove that the other guy shot/went for a gun first. If cops will be punished (which is what you are proposing) for shooting in such situations they will hesitate to fire, which means the other guy gets more opertunities to shoot LEOs and civilians.
3). We have to be able to trust cops for the criminal justice system to work. There are plenty of situations where a cop may be able to do the wrong thing, and if we act as if they do then they can't do their job.

[Laerod]

Ugh, yeah. My bad. I just donated blood and I'm a bit woozy.

Here's the thing: Punishment isn't the point. Maintaining a trustworthy police force is. I have no problem considering letting a cop go whose integrity appears dubious, even if there's not enough evidence to convict them of anything. The integrity of the police force as a whole and the trust it needs to receive from the public to do its job are more important.

Mind, I haven't actually blamed anyone. I'm pointing out that there are reasons why the officer's statements and the fact that a gun was recovered can still happen if the cop was lying. It's unfortunate that cops have planted evidence before and the fact that their word tends to be believed over that of a defendant when it comes to a trial has lowered inhibitions regarding lying and perjury.

Multiple problems with this.
1). Most cops don't plant evidence, they may racially profile, fill quotas, and push the bounds of legal stops and searches but planting evidence is rare. It is also rather hard to do, this case being a great example: the shooter would need a second gun that could not be traced to him and that was perfectly clean of his fingerprints and DNA. Not an easy thing to accomplish, plus questions would be raised when during the investigation no one could figure out where the shot person got the gun.
2). What you are proposing endangers the cops and civilians. In this situation the low was underfire, and you are saying he should loose his job because he returned fire, and he can't prove that the other guy shot/went for a gun first. If cops will be punished (which is what you are proposing) for shooting in such situations they will hesitate to fire, which means the other guy gets more opertunities to shoot LEOs and civilians.
3). We have to be able to trust cops for the criminal justice system to work. There are plenty of situations where a cop may be able to do the wrong thing, and if we act as if they do then they can't do their job.

1) Not the point. It's happened and there are mechanisms in place to prevent instances from being uncovered.
2) Nope. What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go. An employee in the intelligence community won't keep their clearance if they become a sufficiently high risk. Given the role police play in our society, the character of a cop needs to be beyond reproach if they are to be trusted with a gun. Whether this particular case warrants any of that remains to be seen.
3) The onus is most certainly not on us to trust them, it's on them to behave in a trustworthy manner. And some don't. At least not in the US.

[Scomagia]

Provided that the officer's account of events is true, I don't see an issue.

[Jamzmania]

Multiple problems with this.
1). Most cops don't plant evidence, they may racially profile, fill quotas, and push the bounds of legal stops and searches but planting evidence is rare. It is also rather hard to do, this case being a great example: the shooter would need a second gun that could not be traced to him and that was perfectly clean of his fingerprints and DNA. Not an easy thing to accomplish, plus questions would be raised when during the investigation no one could figure out where the shot person got the gun.
2). What you are proposing endangers the cops and civilians. In this situation the low was underfire, and you are saying he should loose his job because he returned fire, and he can't prove that the other guy shot/went for a gun first. If cops will be punished (which is what you are proposing) for shooting in such situations they will hesitate to fire, which means the other guy gets more opertunities to shoot LEOs and civilians.
3). We have to be able to trust cops for the criminal justice system to work. There are plenty of situations where a cop may be able to do the wrong thing, and if we act as if they do then they can't do their job.

1) Not the point. It's happened and there are mechanisms in place to prevent instances from being uncovered.
2) Nope. What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go. An employee in the intelligence community won't keep their clearance if they become a sufficiently high risk. Given the role police play in our society, the character of a cop needs to be beyond reproach if they are to be trusted with a gun. Whether this particular case warrants any of that remains to be seen.
3) The onus is most certainly not on us to trust them, it's on them to behave in a trustworthy manner. And some don't. At least not in the US.

America's police departments aren't the CIA. You can't just fire people because they got acquitted of wrongdoing.

[Tekania]

America's police departments aren't the CIA. You can't just fire people because they got acquitted of wrongdoing.

Not really.... merely because you didn't do anything illegal, does not mean you didn't do anything which may violated the provisions of your employment. I can still fire some acquitted by a court, as while their acts are not a violation of law, they may violate provisions of the job.

[Spirit of Hope]

Multiple problems with this.
1). Most cops don't plant evidence, they may racially profile, fill quotas, and push the bounds of legal stops and searches but planting evidence is rare. It is also rather hard to do, this case being a great example: the shooter would need a second gun that could not be traced to him and that was perfectly clean of his fingerprints and DNA. Not an easy thing to accomplish, plus questions would be raised when during the investigation no one could figure out where the shot person got the gun.
2). What you are proposing endangers the cops and civilians. In this situation the low was underfire, and you are saying he should loose his job because he returned fire, and he can't prove that the other guy shot/went for a gun first. If cops will be punished (which is what you are proposing) for shooting in such situations they will hesitate to fire, which means the other guy gets more opertunities to shoot LEOs and civilians.
3). We have to be able to trust cops for the criminal justice system to work. There are plenty of situations where a cop may be able to do the wrong thing, and if we act as if they do then they can't do their job.

1) Not the point. It's happened and there are mechanisms in place to prevent instances from being uncovered.
2) Nope. What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go. An employee in the intelligence community won't keep their clearance if they become a sufficiently high risk. Given the role police play in our society, the character of a cop needs to be beyond reproach if they are to be trusted with a gun. Whether this particular case warrants any of that remains to be seen.
3) The onus is most certainly not on us to trust them, it's on them to behave in a trustworthy manner. And some don't. At least not in the US.

1) It has happened but mechanisms have been put in place to stop it. The US police are highly uncorrupted, and their is little evidence that they are corrupt.
2) Except firing him is punishment. Also in the intelligence community if they suspect you of something they will investigate it before completely revoking the security clearance, they may provisionally revoke it on suspicion but a investigation will be carried out before the clearance is permanently revoked. Additionally a LOE can't be beyond reproach, first they are human and no human is perfect, second their will always be times when we can't have the full truth.
3) You don't have to trust them, but you do have to prove that they have carried out wrong doing, that is how the system works for everyone (though I think we could make an exception for politicians). Secondly American LOE have historically done a good job, what with the relatively low crime rate in the US and the low levels of corruption in the LOE community.

[Great Kleomentia]

Fun for the whole family.

[Laerod]

America's police departments aren't the CIA. You can't just fire people because they got acquitted of wrongdoing.

The CIA operates on trust that its employees aren't abusing their access to classified information. If that trust is gone, even without a conviction, the employee becomes a liability. The police operates on the trust that cops won't abuse their powers. If that trust is gone, even without a conviction, that cop becomes a liability to every cop.

And don't insinuate I'm arguing that people should be fired "because they got acquitted".

[Spirit of Hope]

America's police departments aren't the CIA. You can't just fire people because they got acquitted of wrongdoing.

The CIA operates on trust that its employees aren't abusing their access to classified information. If that trust is gone, even without a conviction, the employee becomes a liability. The police operates on the trust that cops won't abuse their powers. If that trust is gone, even without a conviction, that cop becomes a liability to every cop.

And don't insinuate I'm arguing that people should be fired "because they got acquitted".

Your insinuating they should get fired without getting atrial or hearing.

[Laerod]

1) Not the point. It's happened and there are mechanisms in place to prevent instances from being uncovered.
2) Nope. What I'm proposing is that in cases where a cop has behaved in a highly suspicious manner but no concrete evidence of wrongdoing is available. If there are significant doubts, but no evidence thereof, let the cop go. An employee in the intelligence community won't keep their clearance if they become a sufficiently high risk. Given the role police play in our society, the character of a cop needs to be beyond reproach if they are to be trusted with a gun. Whether this particular case warrants any of that remains to be seen.
3) The onus is most certainly not on us to trust them, it's on them to behave in a trustworthy manner. And some don't. At least not in the US.

1) It has happened but mechanisms have been put in place to stop it. The US police are highly uncorrupted, and their is little evidence that they are corrupt.
2) Except firing him is punishment. Also in the intelligence community if they suspect you of something they will investigate it before completely revoking the security clearance, they may provisionally revoke it on suspicion but a investigation will be carried out before the clearance is permanently revoked. Additionally a LOE can't be beyond reproach, first they are human and no human is perfect, second their will always be times when we can't have the full truth.
3) You don't have to trust them, but you do have to prove that they have carried out wrong doing, that is how the system works for everyone (though I think we could make an exception for politicians). Secondly American LOE have historically done a good job, what with the relatively low crime rate in the US and the low levels of corruption in the LOE community.

1) You're joking.
2) It wouldn't be punishment anymore than sending a cop go that has been injured in the line of duty into early retirement. Both are a liability when it comes to police work.
3) Fuck no. FUCK. NO.

[Laerod]

The CIA operates on trust that its employees aren't abusing their access to classified information. If that trust is gone, even without a conviction, the employee becomes a liability. The police operates on the trust that cops won't abuse their powers. If that trust is gone, even without a conviction, that cop becomes a liability to every cop.

And don't insinuate I'm arguing that people should be fired "because they got acquitted".

Your insinuating they should get fired without getting atrial or hearing.

I most certainly am not.

[Wanderjar]

I'm usually very pro-police, it's difficult not to be when most of your family are Sheriff's deputies or State Troopers. That said, I have a few reservations about this.

Now, I will preface these with clarifying what I have so far seen to be a source of discontent amongst the posters here, namely the fact that he was off duty. This is irrelevant, as first responders are technically considered permanently on time. If an off duty police officer witnesses a crime or a potential crime, he is technically obligated to intervene. That said, I recognize that in America what happens in one state is not the same as what is the law in another, so keep in mind that I'm solely speaking about procedure in Florida.

That said, police are supposed to exercise fire discipline. Firing seventeen rounds in an urban environment is heartily inappropriate, unless there are either multiple assailants or the individual in question is behind cover. From the sounds of it, this does not seem to be the case. And I'm willing to bet all of my star wars action figures, even Boba Fett, that this is not a 'North Hollywood Heist' scenario where the suspect had sophisticated body armor and automatic weapons. I'm led to believe the individual was running, turned around to draw his weapon, and the officer took him down. Either he's a really poor shot or committed serious overkill.

In line with my earlier comment about first responders, he is however supposed to contact on duty police to pick up where he left off, in otherwords he can gain control over the suspect but an on duty cop actually conducts the arrest. Unless I am wholly mistaken, he did not do this which is itself a breach of protocol.

I'll be interested to see the results of the investigation, since I have questions about the conduct of the officer in question. I don't believe he acted inappropriately on the surface, but I think he exceeded the capacity with which he is authorized.

[Geilinor]

No matter what the cops say on this one the people there aren't going to believe it, even if they're telling the truth.

[Spirit of Hope]

Your insinuating they should get fired without getting atrial or hearing.

I most certainly am not.

You are saying he should get fired, because the situation is "highly suspicious". You haven't waited for an investigation or a trial.

[Geilinor]

I most certainly am not.

You are saying he should get fired, because the situation is "highly suspicious". You haven't waited for an investigation or a trial.

Police officers who use their guns on duty are usually put on temporary leave regardless of what happened.