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

[Zaldakki]

© 2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Hmm...

[Spirit of Hope]

Though you are right the police are changing their story and being rather inconsistent. Which I hate, you would think it would be easy to give out the pertinent details that you know at the time.

It would be a lot easier if the pertinent details weren't more or less like "white off-duty cop in uniform chased down random young black man, then shot him 17 times." That looks kinda bad don'cha know. Looks much better if he ripped off some store, or was acting uppity, or was suspicious like not having any ID when he was a passenger in a car stopped for a minor violation or trying to comply with an officer's order to get his license out of the car, or cocked a snook at a cop, or might of had a gun, or had a toy gun, or had a real gun, or shot a gun.

Frankly I tire of the "we don't have all the details, let's wait, don't rush justice" crowd. You all were quick enough to jump on the "that kid ripped off some smokes from a store" meme that these days is, well, iffy, or anything else for that matter that excuses white cops shooting, Tasing or beating black men. I. Tire.

No stealing from a store isn't justification for a shooting, I have never claimed it is. The only justification for lethal force is the use of lethal force, and since what I have read points towards the fact that the cop was shot at I'm waiting. I'm simply saying wait for the details before you decide yet another cop is a racist with a hard on for killing black teenagers.

[Rouge Dawn]

By this logic
If we stand up to a armed black man where instantly White Supremacists, KKK, Neo-Nazi, and Anti-Semites
If a black man kills a white man with no justification "WOAH MAN! STOP BEING RACIST BY SUPPORTING THE PROSECUTION!"

[Ifreann]

It would be a lot easier if the pertinent details weren't more or less like "white off-duty cop in uniform chased down random young black man, then shot him 17 times." That looks kinda bad don'cha know. Looks much better if he ripped off some store, or was acting uppity, or was suspicious like not having any ID when he was a passenger in a car stopped for a minor violation or trying to comply with an officer's order to get his license out of the car, or cocked a snook at a cop, or might of had a gun, or had a toy gun, or had a real gun, or shot a gun.

Frankly I tire of the "we don't have all the details, let's wait, don't rush justice" crowd. You all were quick enough to jump on the "that kid ripped off some smokes from a store" meme that these days is, well, iffy, or anything else for that matter that excuses white cops shooting, Tasing or beating black men. I. Tire.

Basically. The double standard nauseates me - the whitesplaining brigade going on and on about how this black kid smoked pot (and therefore had it coming), or that black kid knocked over a store (and therefore had it coming), or the other talked sassily to cops (and therefore had it coming)....come on, racists - let's apply your own standards to the cops, shall we? You've been quick enough to indulge in character assassination of dead kids in order to justify their killers...sauce for the goose, after all.

I had a thought recently. An unusual occurrence, I know. Laerod's posted some quotes from a blog by a lawyer recently saying that to safely deal with the cops in the US you have to treat them like a wild animal or a mugger. No sudden movements, get away as soon as you can, but stay still if backing away might provoke them. That kind of thing. Anyway, it occurred to me that if you asked some of these people supporting the police, taking their word for it right off the bat, how they'd react to being confronted with a mugger or a dangerous animal, their answer would be "Shoot it dead".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

By this logic
If we stand up to a armed black man where instantly White Supremacists, KKK, Neo-Nazi, and Anti-Semites
If a black man kills a white man with no justification "WOAH MAN! STOP BEING RACIST BY SUPPORTING THE PROSECUTION!"

Your reading comprehension seems to be malfunctioning. That's not what's being stated at all. Don't let me stop your "Poor white people always being falsely accused of racism" victimization bit, though.

[Spirit of Hope]

Basically. The double standard nauseates me - the whitesplaining brigade going on and on about how this black kid smoked pot (and therefore had it coming), or that black kid knocked over a store (and therefore had it coming), or the other talked sassily to cops (and therefore had it coming)....come on, racists - let's apply your own standards to the cops, shall we? You've been quick enough to indulge in character assassination of dead kids in order to justify their killers...sauce for the goose, after all.

I had a thought recently. Laerod's posted some quotes from a blog by a lawyer recently saying that to safely deal with the cops in the US you have to treat them like a wild animal or a mugger. No sudden movements, get away as soon as you can, but stay still if backing away might provoke them. That kind of thing. Anyway, it occurred to me that if you asked some of these people supporting the police, taking their word for it right off the bat, how they'd react to being confronted with a mugger or a dangerous animal, their answer would be "Shoot it dead".

Dangerous animal? Generally they are hard to shoot and don't go down on the first shot, better policy is to get away quickly but calmly.

Mugger? Generally do what he wants. Throw your wallet away from you, muggers are more interested in the money than your life.

Shooting them is generally way more hassle, danger and work than just avoiding them, and not acting like an idiot. Only when life or limb is in immediate danger do you shoot.

Cops? Treat with respect, follow orders.

Cars? Look both ways on the street.

The SoH guide to not dying.

[Laerod]

Well enlighten me. If a hearing or investigation can't find evidence of wrong doing why should the officer be let go?

Not evidence, proof. Not to mention cases of jackasses like this one. What you're arguing for and what I'm arguing against is keeping people like that on the force in the event that they don't receive a conviction.

[Laerod]

Well, we have at least some information now...and it doesn't look too good for the cops. The "suspect" was unarmed minutes earlier, and the cops have changed their stories multiple times, including to (and away from) phyiscally-impossible accounts, such as Myers "leaping out of bushes" to attack the cops in an area without any bushes to leap out of.

And there I was hoping my suspicions weren't going to be vindicated =C

[Scomagia]

By this logic
If we stand up to a armed black man where instantly White Supremacists, KKK, Neo-Nazi, and Anti-Semites
If a black man kills a white man with no justification "WOAH MAN! STOP BEING RACIST BY SUPPORTING THE PROSECUTION!"

Did someone help you build that strawman, or did you do it all on your own?

[Scomagia]

I had a thought recently. Laerod's posted some quotes from a blog by a lawyer recently saying that to safely deal with the cops in the US you have to treat them like a wild animal or a mugger. No sudden movements, get away as soon as you can, but stay still if backing away might provoke them. That kind of thing. Anyway, it occurred to me that if you asked some of these people supporting the police, taking their word for it right off the bat, how they'd react to being confronted with a mugger or a dangerous animal, their answer would be "Shoot it dead".

Dangerous animal? Generally they are hard to shoot and don't go down on the first shot, better policy is to get away quickly but calmly.

Mugger? Generally do what he wants. Throw your wallet away from you, muggers are more interested in the money than your life.

Shooting them is generally way more hassle, danger and work than just avoiding them, and not acting like an idiot. Only when life or limb is in immediate danger do you shoot.

Cops? Treat with respect, follow orders.

Cars? Look both ways on the street.

The SoH guide to not dying.

The police do not deserve respect based solely upon being the police.

[Laerod]

The police do not deserve respect based solely upon being the police.

I'd argue they do (they are representatives of the law, after all), but that goes hand in hand with holding them to a much higher standard when it comes to how they handle their behavior.

[Scomagia]

The police do not deserve respect based solely upon being the police.

I'd argue they do (they are representatives of the law, after all), but that goes hand in hand with holding them to a much higher standard when it comes to how they handle their behavior.

You could, but you'd be wrong. They deserve the same base level of respect as anyone else, no more or less. The fact that they represent "The Law" does not, and should not, garner any amount of extra respect. They should be treated as well as any stranger, trusted as well as any stranger, and obeyed only to the lengths the law requires.

[Divitaen]

The police have such a terrible reputation of managing ethnic and racial tensions that there is no question that the killing of African-Americans by policemen will draw media attention. I don't think the fact that the race card is played inappropriately sometimes should draw us away from genuine cases such as Michael Brown.

[Laerod]

I'd argue they do (they are representatives of the law, after all), but that goes hand in hand with holding them to a much higher standard when it comes to how they handle their behavior.

You could, but you'd be wrong. They deserve the same base level of respect as anyone else, no more or less. The fact that they represent "The Law" does not, and should not, garner any amount of extra respect. They should be treated as well as any stranger, trusted as well as any stranger, and obeyed only to the lengths the law requires.

Maybe we're using different definitions of "respect" here. When I say they deserve more respect it's in terms of a cop having more authority to tell me to step away from somewhere than a random passerby. I don't have to obey random civilians the way I have to obey cops.

[Scomagia]

You could, but you'd be wrong. They deserve the same base level of respect as anyone else, no more or less. The fact that they represent "The Law" does not, and should not, garner any amount of extra respect. They should be treated as well as any stranger, trusted as well as any stranger, and obeyed only to the lengths the law requires.

Maybe we're using different definitions of "respect" here. When I say they deserve more respect it's in terms of a cop having more authority to tell me to step away from somewhere than a random passerby. I don't have to obey random civilians the way I have to obey cops.

It appears that we are using different definitions, yes. I still addressed the definition you're using, though, by saying that they should be obeyed to the extent the law requires. I see that less as respect and more as a societal obligation.

[Laerod]

Maybe we're using different definitions of "respect" here. When I say they deserve more respect it's in terms of a cop having more authority to tell me to step away from somewhere than a random passerby. I don't have to obey random civilians the way I have to obey cops.

It appears that we are using different definitions, yes. I still addressed the definition you're using, though, by saying that they should be obeyed to the extent the law requires. I see that less as respect and more as a societal obligation.

Then we're basically in agreement except as to what the definition of "respect" is.

[Scomagia]

It appears that we are using different definitions, yes. I still addressed the definition you're using, though, by saying that they should be obeyed to the extent the law requires. I see that less as respect and more as a societal obligation.

Then we're basically in agreement except as to what the definition of "respect" is.

It would seem so.

[Gigaverse]

You really trust the police version of the story?
Without any actual evidence shown?
Despite other witnesses saying otherwise?

Hmmmmmmm.

We cannot just say anything without looking to both sides.

For once, I trust the cop's decision. About time already; the race card shouldn't be played for this case... yet.

[Laerod]

You really trust the police version of the story?
Without any actual evidence shown?
Despite other witnesses saying otherwise?

Hmmmmmmm.

We cannot just say anything without looking to both sides.

For once, I trust the cop's decision. About time already; the race card shouldn't be played for this case... yet.

*ahem*

[Scomagia]

You really trust the police version of the story?
Without any actual evidence shown?
Despite other witnesses saying otherwise?

Hmmmmmmm.

We cannot just say anything without looking to both sides.

For once, I trust the cop's decision. About time already; the race card shouldn't be played for this case... yet.

I'll believe the officer once a ballistics team finds the bullets that were allegedly fired at the officer. Also, considering the climate between people of color and the police in this country for oh, the last hundred years or so, I can't say I find it terribly unfair that they're motives are called into question in situations like this.

[Gigaverse]

We cannot just say anything without looking to both sides.

For once, I trust the cop's decision. About time already; the race card shouldn't be played for this case... yet.

*ahem*

> Well, like I said, one shouldn't conclude until there's more evidence. I have no fault on my part for having declared that.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

snip

What a load of bull. Until you can prove that all things being equal a cop will shot a black man deader than a white man this is but a myth. All things being equal meaning the exact same circumstances, the individual doing the exact same actions etc.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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?

Probably he was trying to make the cop out as "evil" for changing mags, which the cop probably didn't (17 shots fired) .

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".

I fail to understand your logic. Because you hold someone to a higher standard you are supposed to give them the benefit of doubt "more" than you would to someone else.

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.

How come? By assuming that killings and racial profiling excuse further crimes?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

This is what I recall as well, and am pretty certain this isn't exclusive to Florida. The problem with this, however, is that even if this obligation exists it can be extremely hard to prove that an off-duty cop witnessed a crime and didn't act. Unless there's something like security cameras around, or a witness recognized the cop, it's very hard. Also, IMO, off-duty cops should not be obligated to intervene unless there are reasons to believe that intervening would prevent something like a death or serious bodily harm, or some other major crime. Reporting the deed to on-duty police is a whole different ball game, however.

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.

In all honesty I have so far seen no evidence to either confirm or infirm that the deceased used some form of cover. In any case, panicking (which is obviously something a cop shouldn't ever do) could have caused him to miss a number of times, and in lethal force situations protocol is to shoot until the threat is neutralized (aka incapacitated) , not until they stop shooting. I agree that 17 still is a lot. AFAIK stray bullets fired by cops killing or wounding someone are extremely rare.

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.

There's also the "suppressive fire" mindset (which I find hard to believe is part of standard protocol) where someone will shoot in the direction of somebody else knowing full well the shot is very unlikely or impossible to hit their target, but do so regardless in order to intimidate the target into submission through fear etc. Kind of like firing warning shots.

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 don't think off-duty they have access to or are allowed to carry a police radio, so contacting PD would most probably require a 911 call. Which would most probably have taken too long/been impractical given how the suspects were running and supposedly one started shooting after.

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.

He definitely did by wearing a police uniform off-duty, which is completely out of line. As far as chasing suspicious individuals is concerned, however, it is not only a perfectly legal thing to do while on public property for anyone, but required more or less by being a private security contractor and/or being a cop.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

This is an important consideration to bear.

The man was working as a private contractor alongside police work, and wore his duty police uniform on his shift as a private contractor (I don't like the sound of that at all. This sounds like a component of the many cultural problems US police seem to have in many places). He then expends what is probably an entire (large, non-AWB-compliant) magazine at some guy running away from him. Admittedly he did claim to have taken fire from the man. But 17 rounds? Jesus bro.

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.

He also said that "significant doubts" should be taken into account.

Police disciplinary hearings are distinctly protectionist. Even the "Independent Police Complaints Commission"'s impartiality in the UK has been called into question in recent years.

Though you are right the police are changing their story and being rather inconsistent. Which I hate, you would think it would be easy to give out the pertinent details that you know at the time.

It would be a lot easier if the pertinent details weren't more or less like "white off-duty cop in uniform chased down random young black man, then shot him fired/shot at him 17 times."

Fix'd. Critical distinction.

snip

What a load of bull. Until you can prove that all things being equal a cop will shot a black man deader than a white man this is but a myth. All things being equal meaning the exact same circumstances, the individual doing the exact same actions etc.

About a week after the Ferguson shooting, a white middle aged man was wandering in the street in Kalamazoo, with a rifle openly carried, and was very drunk. He got himself into a standoff with the police, eventually wilfully surrendered his weapon and was not even charged with an offence. He got to walk home, and could even pick up his weapon from the police station the next day.

Blacks get shot on the suspicion of being armed in much less dangerous or even suspicious circumstances than being drunk in charge of an openly carried longarm.
What's wrong with extending this nice, safe de-escalation strategy to non-whites?
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/05/gun_nut ... ry_zealot/