-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
St. Louis Police Officer Shoots, Kills Teen During Pedestrian Check
- Thread starter Black Mamba
- Start date
- Status
Like that. Still want to know if the corpse has powder burns from that exact gun and all that, of course.
Also, it's important to keep in mind that this happened in St Louis, not Ferguson.
Tempesta di Fuoco
Banned
So pedestrian ran, shot at police officer (who was working security), police officer returned fire, hit him and killed him.
Sucks that the guy died, but I don't know how many people would do anything differently if they were being shot at.
Sucks that the guy died, but I don't know how many people would do anything differently if they were being shot at.
sprinkled?
OminoMichelin
Member
Except it doesn't add up. Why would the guy shoot a cop in the first place?
Looking at it that way, no one ever shoots anyone, though.
OminoMichelin
Member
That's not true. Maybe the cop pointed a gun at him first and he panicked? Maybe he was edgy because he did something earlier?
Still, it would be nice to be given a reason as of why he allegedly shot the cop.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Haha, that's a good joke. Almost fell out of my chair.
Maybe he didn't want to go to jail for previous crimes? Maybe he was mentally sick? There are several possibilities.
If he actually did shoot at the officer first, or even brandished a weapon and pointed it at him, then while I am saddened he was killed, he had it coming and I have a hard time feeling sorry for him.
On the other hand, the possibility of the police planting a weapon on him are all too plausible, so I am not 100% trusting police on their word given their track record.
On the other hand, the possibility of the police planting a weapon on him are all too plausible, so I am not 100% trusting police on their word given their track record.
It says in the second article that the cop caught up to him and there was a physical confrontation. So if the kid pulled a gun and shot first, it sounds to me like it was after adrenaline was already pumping, and people don't make the best decisions when they're in the heat of the moment.
Of course we don't have enough info to even speculate, but I'd be just as skeptical of a family member claiming he had a sandwich as I would a police department claiming he shot first.
Still if there was a physical confrontation it should be pretty easy to get the necessary evidence. Just hope that the PD does the right thing if they find out the officer lied in his statement.
Of course we don't have enough info to even speculate, but I'd be just as skeptical of a family member claiming he had a sandwich as I would a police department claiming he shot first.
Still if there was a physical confrontation it should be pretty easy to get the necessary evidence. Just hope that the PD does the right thing if they find out the officer lied in his statement.
Rastafarian42
Member
Wow damn man.
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
Cameas on guns. Cameras on cop cars. And systematic media coverage each time something like that happens.
There's not much else that can realistically be done.
It's probably worth considering that after the Ferguson shooting, people (and especially people in Saint Louis) will be on hyper alert, and very likely to see things that aren't there.
I don't mean that they're lying, or that they are stupid. I mean it in the same way that a case of a deadly virus makes people suddenly afraid that every cough or ache is a symptom of impending death, when just days ago they would have shrugged the cough off.
It also doesn't mean they're wrong. Maybe this is another case of police abuse. I'm just pointing out that we always need to consider that type of hyper awareness in cases like this when an entire area is swept up by an (important) social movement.
I don't mean that they're lying, or that they are stupid. I mean it in the same way that a case of a deadly virus makes people suddenly afraid that every cough or ache is a symptom of impending death, when just days ago they would have shrugged the cough off.
It also doesn't mean they're wrong. Maybe this is another case of police abuse. I'm just pointing out that we always need to consider that type of hyper awareness in cases like this when an entire area is swept up by an (important) social movement.
Yeah, I doubt you can confuse a sandwich with a gun and someone chewing with shots being fired at you.
Reminds me of the shooting of an officer here a few days ago. Someone shoots an officer and pins down a few other cops requiring swat to taken them to safety. Yet all the witnesses claim the shooter was unarmed and police killed him. They didn't kill him, he was taken into custody, not even wounded.
Reminds me of the shooting of an officer here a few days ago. Someone shoots an officer and pins down a few other cops requiring swat to taken them to safety. Yet all the witnesses claim the shooter was unarmed and police killed him. They didn't kill him, he was taken into custody, not even wounded.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Where's that? Have a link?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'll wait for more info before jumping to any conclusion. If the guy fired at the police there should be two seperate bullet types at the crime scene. It would be pretty easy to plant a bullet, but it won't be easy to plant gunpowder discharge under the guy's finger nails. We'll see.
BronsonLee
Member
Oooh, I definitely think we should wait for more info on this one.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-shot-in-englewood-20141007-story.html#page=1
Edit: wait the quote is no longer there. Let me find another,.
The witness accounts were on TV, but this one still had the quotes last time I checked it. Basically some random witnesses were claiming police just shot him, although the incident was not over and offender was taken into custody unharmed. It seems sun times and tribune removed the quotes though.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Being Black in Public
It's the conflicting reports that are controversial really.
The Lamonster
Member
Black teen? Black teen. Big surprise. This shit must end.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Police side arms, depending on the make and caliber of the firearm, usually have between 13~17 rounds in the magazine.
Actually, they are just squeezing the trigger out of stress. They're not really consciously laying down suppressive fire or something like that. They have no idea how many shots they're taking. You have to be pretty well trained not to just empty the magazine. A lot of people either shoot once or twice or they just empty the magazine and will even keep squeezing the trigger long after the pistol slide gets locked back for charging because they're on autopilot, simply because they haven't been trained under stress. Even if people are trained (e.g. in the military), they still sometimes will revert out of that. It's not like there's some sort of ammo counter in the corner of people's vision.
My CZ carries 19 rounds. 16 isn't some incredibly high amount.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'm reserving judgement until more facts are known.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
So does anyone mind defining what a "pedestrian check" is, and why it's appropriate for an off-duty officer to perform one?
In a case of an unarmed victim they have no excuses what so ever. If they are that stressed with an unarmed victim then they have proven themselves to be completely incompetent. If this was the case then everyone would feel the need to murder their opponent out of fear (especially if they, the one acting in fear, got a weapon in hard) whenever there are in a confrontation but that isn't often end up being the case because many people knows better or are pushed to know better . I.e. The Police don't get a free ride especially when they have clear chances to defuse a situation. You know what I mean?
This is what most people don't realize. Under stressful conditions that the mind perceives as life or death, a lot of the fine motor skills shut down so you can focus on staying alive. So the body response to pull the trigger is almost subconscious once the decision is made to fire the weapon. You can fire off a full magazine in about 4 seconds.
There are also many cases of officers not even hearing the gun fire and trying to clear what they believe is a gun jam when it actually fired properly, but the stress has caused them to not be able to hear it shoot.
Nikodemos
Member
Trigger discipline and shot counting is only taught in the armed forces or various special operations branches of intel. It's something you have to drill into a shooter over the course of months of continuous training.
Your average beat cop gets just some occasional range time.
Edit: explained in detail above.
It's probably the name to give to the intervention where the officer intercepts a pedestrian whos starts running away at the sight of a police uniform.
2 hours per year here.
People, I know what you are saying about being stressed under fire but that is only when under fire. Just remember what the subtitle say on a police badge:
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...&q=us+police+badge+serve+and+protect&imgdii=_
That is rule number #1. These corrupt, fickle or ill cops are not doing that even to unarmed people. Of course not all cops are like this, but it's incredibly unfortunate that there are many out there that are giving all cops a bad name, and it is amplified when the PDs are protecting them. I.e. They have no excuses, especially when compared to the military.
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...&q=us+police+badge+serve+and+protect&imgdii=_
That is rule number #1. These corrupt, fickle or ill cops are not doing that even to unarmed people. Of course not all cops are like this, but it's incredibly unfortunate that there are many out there that are giving all cops a bad name, and it is amplified when the PDs are protecting them. I.e. They have no excuses, especially when compared to the military.
Sounds like the check was what they were walking toward them to do. All I can find about the term is that it's just when an officer stops a pedestrian to ask them questions. I don't believe the pedestrian is under any obligation to answer since nothing mentions being detained.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
This is an obvious reason why police departments need to get their shit together. Otherwise, you have people going crazy even when a shooting is justified (if it turns out to be in this case) because nobody trusts them.
I've never heard that term and I've been a police officer for 12 years. But he was working in a security capacity presumably in that area. I've read one article saying that the 18 year old was walking as though he was carrying a gun. He was turning around to investigate further to speak with them and they all ran.
If a pedestrian check is that areas lingo for a standard field interview(identifying the individual based on reasonable articulated suspicion is the belief that he was carrying a gun) that would be allowable in both his security function and being an off duty officer.
Police officers are never really "off duty" in the sense that we are bound by law to act on a felony or a violent misdemeanor whenever we become aware of a potential violation. If the officer believed he was carrying a gun then he would be duty bound to at the very least confirm or rule out his suspicions. Which would be to stop him and investigate which would also be grounds for a terry stop.
I think they are using the term pedestrian check in place of terry stop.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Thank you.
I wonder how many people posting actually read the full article, and not the highlighted version from the OP?
Because the article seems to point out how people on the ground jumped the gun and started protesting, despite it being a case where the man running away opened fire on the officer, and use of a firearm seems justified. Not only that, but they have physical evidence that there was a gun and it was fired 3 times.
People saying they will wait for more info didn't get that nuance without reading the actual article.
It's like using a cycling on a sidewalk as an excuse to talk to someone.
Because the article seems to point out how people on the ground jumped the gun and started protesting, despite it being a case where the man running away opened fire on the officer, and use of a firearm seems justified. Not only that, but they have physical evidence that there was a gun and it was fired 3 times.
People saying they will wait for more info didn't get that nuance without reading the actual article.
It's like using a cycling on a sidewalk as an excuse to talk to someone.
Byakuya769
Member
Who know what happened, but pedestrian checks? By off-duty officers?
Come on.
Come on.
outunderthestars
Banned
This might be a dumb question, but if is it illegal to run away from a cop if I have not been suspected of committing a crime?
Also, this whole "he was walking like he was carrying a gun" sounds like post-incident bullshit ass covering to me.
Also, this whole "he was walking like he was carrying a gun" sounds like post-incident bullshit ass covering to me.
Off duty is a slight misnomer btw.
When cops here do off duty work (called EJs, for extra jobs) they are in full uniform, squad car, and are required to answer calls if no one else can. But basically they post at a business that is paying the department for a police officer to be scheduled there. They pay the dept, which pays the cop for the EJ time (its extra work outside their regular schedule). Bars, clubs, hospitals, supermarkets, etc do it here all the time. Cops make a lot of extra money if they start doing EJs.
For example, the insurance company next to my job pays a cop to part in the parking lot when the employees get out of work towards the evening. The lot is bordering an alley thats definitely a bit rough so having a cop there makes it easy on employees going to their car. Especially for late work days.
When cops here do off duty work (called EJs, for extra jobs) they are in full uniform, squad car, and are required to answer calls if no one else can. But basically they post at a business that is paying the department for a police officer to be scheduled there. They pay the dept, which pays the cop for the EJ time (its extra work outside their regular schedule). Bars, clubs, hospitals, supermarkets, etc do it here all the time. Cops make a lot of extra money if they start doing EJs.
For example, the insurance company next to my job pays a cop to part in the parking lot when the employees get out of work towards the evening. The lot is bordering an alley thats definitely a bit rough so having a cop there makes it easy on employees going to their car. Especially for late work days.
Great response but could you expand on "walking as though he was carrying a gun"? What does that look like? That sounds eerily like the old excuse "He was going for my gun".
They are claiming he had a gun and fired it, not that it looked like he had one.
Edit: nvm I see where you got it from
How about some cops that don't suspect every black person is going to kill them?
It is not illegal but you are giving a police officer a reason to detain you out of suspicion (you must have something to hide if you are running away) which would 9/10 rule in their favour.
Walking like he is carrying a gun is definite BS. Unfortunately, because it came from the cops' mouth (if it did came from his mouth), then their subjective words would be more favourable than facts coming from 5 black witnesses. Disgusting.
No problem. I could be off being I'm not from that area. I could see them using that term for simple things where it would amount to a voluntary stop where the guy would be free to leave and his participation would be voluntary.
But in this case the "facts"(used loosely since we don't really know yet) seem to move this to a terry stop where the officer believed he had a weapon which would constitute an allowable detention to investigate further.
Hope that helps. I won't shoot you if you disagree. For what it's worth I feel a little ashamed to be a police officer because of recent events. It looks bad on all of us.
We forget that society has empowered us to do a job that gives us the ultimate ability to take away basic rights the constitution provides all citizens, including the ultimate seizure of a persons life under certain conditions. That's carries a lot of responsibility and trust and that trust is broken. How do we fix it? I don't have an answer for that. The damage may be too bad to repair without drastic changes.
If the pedestrian was doing nothing other than being black then this was an unconstitutional and needless interaction by the cop.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked