So what is going on in Missouri

[markw]

Nestor, do not call me a liar.

You're simply saying nothing of value in this tread. If you've got something to say, man up and say it instead of trying to play coy games.

I'll go first: The miscreant shot at the cop first, missed, and then his gun jammed. The cop shot back and killed him.

You seem to have a problem with that.

Why?

 

[crossedover]

"Troubled" person continues to cause trouble. End Of Story. So sick of repeat offenders and just bad people getting a community to back their poor decisions.

 

[Nestor]

Nestor, do not call me a liar.

You're simply saying nothing of value in this tread. If you've got something to say, man up and say it instead of trying to play coy games.

I'll go first: The miscreant shot at the cop first, missed, and then his gun jammed. The cop shot back and killed him.

You seem to have a problem with that.

Why?

Don't put words in my mouth.


Which is it?

Did the cop see the gun and give chase or did the cop see the gun while chasing him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markw]

I didn't put words in your mouth. Your actions here lead any sentient being to the obvious conclusion. Now, if you deny it, I'll call you a liar to your face.

Read ricks post for a bullet list of the events. Do I have to do your thinking for you?

In any case, it doesn't mater. There's one less gun toting thug in this world to worry about.

Again, do you have a problem with that?

Now, get back to your bucolic life and leave us big city boys to our own concerns.

 

[Steve81]

Incorrect.

He claims he spotted a gun while chasing them.

It says so right in your quote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Unless I'm missing something, the quote states that he chases them AFTER one of them was holding his pants in a way that suggested he had a firearm. Maybe he didn't necessarily see the weapon, but he saw enough to apparently make an accurate deduction.

 

[Steve81]

I didn't put words in your mouth. Your actions here lead any sentient being to the obvious conclusion. Now, if you deny it, I'll call you a liar to your face.

Read ricks post for a bullet list of the events. Do I have to do your thinking for you?

In any case, it doesn't mater. There's one less gun toting thug in this world to worry about.

Again, do you have a problem with that?

Now, get back to your bucolic life and leave us big city boys to our own concerns.

Try and keep it to a dull roar gents, lest the thread get locked.

 

[herbu]

I heard on the news that the off-duty cop was patrolling the area. He saw the 3 guys outside of a community center that was closed. He approached them to investigate, and they ran. Only heard that reported once. I suspect, just like other recent events where a black youth was shot by a white man, the shooter's defense team is avoiding release of information prior to official proceedings.

If you jump on a guy and start pounding his head on the concrete, you have no one to blame but yourself when he defends himself. If you crush a guy's eye socket, ditto. If you shoot at a guy, ditto. You want me to be responsible for my actions? Fine. Agree. But then how can you think that you are not responsible for yours?

 

[Rickster71]

It's very simple math.
All the little details things we see when not viewing the world through a prism.

The cop was from that town and knew the kid was on probation. He also knew he was violating probation as an ankle bracelet wearer he was only supposed to go to school and work.
The kid knew was was out of bounds by having a gun while on probation for an earlier gun charge.
That's why they ran.

 

[Nestor]

I didn't put words in your mouth. Your actions here lead any sentient being to the obvious conclusion. Now, if you deny it, I'll call you a liar to your face.

Read ricks post for a bullet list of the events. Do I have to do your thinking for you?

In any case, it doesn't mater. There's one less gun toting thug in this world to worry about.

Again, do you have a problem with that?

Now, get back to your bucolic life and leave us big city boys to our own concerns.

So far, no one has answered my earlier question. Why was the cop pursuing them?

It wasn't because of the gun, because he allegedly spotted it while he was giving chase.

What crime did they commit to warrant the pursuit?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Nestor]

It's very simple math.
All the little details things we see when not viewing the world through a prism.

The cop was from that town and knew the kid was on probation. He also knew he was violating probation as an ankle bracelet wearer he was only supposed to go to school and work.
The kid knew was was out of bounds by having a gun while on probation for an earlier gun charge.
That's why they ran.

Link?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rickster71]

Link?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The link to the story is in my post - 106

Edit:
here's another link and some from that article: Teen in Shaw shooting died from gunshot to right cheek, medical examiner says : News

"...update to reporters after midnight, said the uniformed officer had been in a car when he saw three males near Shaw Boulevard and Klemm Street at about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday. One of the males started to run away but stopped. The officer did a U-turn and then all three ran, in the 4100 block of Shaw Boulevard. The officer drove through streets following them, and then he got out and chased them on foot.The officer followed one of the young men, identified as Myers, into a gangway. He was running and holding his waistband in a way that caused the officer to suspect he had a gun, according to police.
Myers turned and approached the officer in "an aggressive manner," police said, and the officer told Myers to surrender. Myers continued to come at the officer and the two struggled. A sweatshirt the man was wearing came off during the struggle, police said.
Myers then ran from the officer, up an incline in the 4100 block of Shaw, and the officer saw what he believed to be a gun. He did not immediately fire because he wanted to be sure it was a firearm, police said. Myers turned and pointed a gun toward the officer and fired at least three shots, police said.
As Myers fired, the officer returned fire, police said. Myers continued to pull the trigger, but his gun apparently jammed."

"....the teen who died "was no stranger to law enforcement"

On July 8, as a condition of bail, Myers was activated on electronic monitoring for house arrest, court records say. He could leave his home in the 4200 block of Castleman Avenue for work, school, court appearances, meetings with attorneys and meetings with the private monitoring firm.

 

[Steve81]

Seems appropriate as well
Illinois v. Wardlow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wardlow moved to suppress the evidence regarding the gun claiming the stop was unreasonable and that there are many legitimate reasons for fleeing from the sight of police. An Illinois trial court denied his motion, and he was convicted. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed, finding that the officers did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion for making a stop. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with that decision. The US Supreme Court reversed both the Appellate and Illinois Supreme Court decisions, with the Supreme Court stating that fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is enough to create reasonable suspicion. Indicating that reasonable suspicion rest heavily on normal human behavior, stating that flight at the mere sight of police is a sign that there exists reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

 

[markw]

So far, no one has answered my earlier question. Why was the cop pursuing them?

It wasn't because of the gun, because he allegedly spotted it while he was giving chase.

What crime did they commit to warrant the pursuit?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nessie, Since you won't man up and openly admit to your feelings, I've got no desire or need to answer any more of your questions. If you can't deduce the answers from all the previous posts, you are either being intellectually dishonest or are simply incapable of understanding (or accepting) any answers one might provide.

 

[Steve81]

Seems appropriate as well
Illinois v. Wardlow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Digging deeper, it looks like even reasonable suspicion isn't required for an officer to merely pursue / follow someone, that only applies for a 'Terry stop'/ stop and frisk. There's also no requirement for suspicion for an officer to simply walk up to you and ask you a few questions (though you're not necessarily obligated to answer). That Myers ran at the sight of a police officer was therefore in and of itself enough justification for the unnamed officer to follow.

 

[Adam]

Did the officer identify himself as such?

Probably mentioned somewhere in the thread or the news...just asking to save me some reading. Yes, I deserve your ridicule.

 

[Steve81]

Did the officer identify himself as such?

Probably mentioned somewhere in the thread or the news...just asking to save me some reading. Yes, I deserve your ridicule.

If nothing else, he was still in uniform. I haven't seen it explicitly stated that he was driving a police car, though the circumstances make it sound that way (one ran when they saw his car, and all ran when he u-turned).

 

[Nestor]

The link to the story is in my post - 106

Edit:
here's another link and some from that article: Teen in Shaw shooting died from gunshot to right cheek, medical examiner says : News

"...update to reporters after midnight, said the uniformed officer had been in a car when he saw three males near Shaw Boulevard and Klemm Street at about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday. One of the males started to run away but stopped. The officer did a U-turn and then all three ran, in the 4100 block of Shaw Boulevard. The officer drove through streets following them, and then he got out and chased them on foot.The officer followed one of the young men, identified as Myers, into a gangway. He was running and holding his waistband in a way that caused the officer to suspect he had a gun, according to police.
Myers turned and approached the officer in "an aggressive manner," police said, and the officer told Myers to surrender. Myers continued to come at the officer and the two struggled. A sweatshirt the man was wearing came off during the struggle, police said.
Myers then ran from the officer, up an incline in the 4100 block of Shaw, and the officer saw what he believed to be a gun. He did not immediately fire because he wanted to be sure it was a firearm, police said. Myers turned and pointed a gun toward the officer and fired at least three shots, police said.
As Myers fired, the officer returned fire, police said. Myers continued to pull the trigger, but his gun apparently jammed."

"....the teen who died "was no stranger to law enforcement"

On July 8, as a condition of bail, Myers was activated on electronic monitoring for house arrest, court records say. He could leave his home in the 4200 block of Castleman Avenue for work, school, court appearances, meetings with attorneys and meetings with the private monitoring firm.

A good article, for sure, but it's a stretch to say the officer knew he was violating any sort of probation or parole.

From your link:

That firm, Eastern Missouri Alternative Sentencing Services, Inc., was supposed to monitor Myers' movements and contact the court if he violated the rules. Nothing in the court file indicates any violations. Susan Ryan, a spokeswoman for the St. Louis circuit attorney's office, said prosecutors weren't told of any violations.

Myers' attorney, Peter Cohen, said going out to get a sandwich would have been OK under the conditions of the electronic monitoring. He said the ankle monitor is standard in most cases for anyone facing a gun charge in the city who is allowed out on bail.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Nestor]

Nessie, Since you won't man up and openly admit to your feelings, I've got no desire or need to answer any more of your questions. If you can't deduce the answers from all the previous posts, you are either being intellectually dishonest or are simply incapable of understanding (or accepting) any answers one might provide.

So, from now on I'll just treat you like something I stepped in in the pasture. I've got good boots, it won't bother me, and it'll fall off eventually.

If others choose to be willing doners for your endless game of animal husbandry with thoughtful answers to your simplistic, redundant one liner questions, that's their choice but I'm outtta here.

Buh-bye, Nessie

Do what you will. I'm neither intimidated nor bothered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rickster71]

A good article, for sure, but it's a stretch to say the officer knew he was violating any sort of probation or parole.

I'm pretty sure carrying a gun while on probation from an earlier gun charge is a violation.
That's why they ran when the cop rode by.
Them running caused the cop to make a u-turn.
Seeing him running in an awkward way while holding his waist band to prevent the gun from dropping also tipped off an experienced cop to what was going on.

The ice just continues to get thinner for anyone playing Devil's Advocate on this one.

 

[Nestor]

Digging deeper, it looks like even reasonable suspicion isn't required for an officer to merely pursue / follow someone, that only applies for a 'Terry stop'/ stop and frisk. There's also no requirement for suspicion for an officer to simply walk up to you and ask you a few questions (though you're not necessarily obligated to answer). That Myers ran at the sight of a police officer was therefore in and of itself enough justification for the unnamed officer to follow.

Fair enough.

A number of issues complicate this case. The officer retains 24/7 powers, but was on a private security job at the time of the incident. Someone here questioned whether the officer was driving a patrol car or a security car. When the kids bolted, did they see a security officer or a LEO?

This incident also relies heavily on the testimony of the LEO. The public is justifiably distrustful, given the recent incidences in Ferguson and a Walmart in OH.

IMO, the burden of proof of proper officer conduct in this incident is on the officer and the police dept.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk