18 y/o Black male shot dead by Police in St Louis suburb of Berkeley MO

[Mrs G Norris]

OK, not a gun person, but if the primary use of the gun was to intimidate and shoot off a few scary sounding warning shots (like say in a robbery type situation) then it seems to me that the cheapest ammo would suffice.

 

[Archangel7]

Archangel it looks like the gun was loaded with FMJ ammo, is it normal for street thugs to use that? Or was this guy just cheap/stupid?

Image from Foxnews.com

(For those not familiar with handguns, Full Metal Jacket ammo is usually sold for target practice and it is often cheaper than self defense rounds, it doesn't expand like hollowpoint).

I've not found it unusual. Seems many recovered are "ball" or FMJ ammo. Just another sign of ignorance about ammunition expansion, penetration and ricochet. Could have been in the gun when stolen/purchased?

Seems I read where the gun had 5 rounds out of a possible 8. He's wasn't likely going to submit his D.L. to be recorded when ammunition is bought legally. So any ammo purchased on the black market is expensive and of whatever kind is available.

Lastly most of those cheap semi autos don't feed anything well but will generally feed the "ball" ammo.

 

[Sonya610]

So any ammo purchased on the black market is expensive and of whatever kind is available.

Ahhh...that probably explains why it seems many young thugs have a problem with guns jamming, safeties being left on, and just plain missing their targets. If they have to buy a handful of expensive black market rounds then they aren't practicing at a firing range. Makes you wonder if they ever even clean/lube up their guns since that would require buying supplies at a gun shop.

 

[CoolJ]

The firearm involved appears to be a Hipoint semi auto in 9mm. It does appear the safety is in the "safe"/no fire position from the photo. I doubt it was legally obtained new by him as the 4473 form has specific questions around mental issues, drugs, crime, etc.

Seems that gun retails new from below $200USD to 250ish at a reputable gun dealer/gun store.

Had the attempted shooter remembered to take the safety off, the officer would likely be deceased now.

Hard to determine solely from just the vids whether it was a setup/ambush but the officer reacted as one should, react with force while distancing one's self from the lethal act or if ambushed react force on force and clear the kill zone.

Now we understand Terry v Ohio and why a cop has a right to frisk for weapons during an interaction.

BBM

You have mentioned this terry vs ohio before and I corrected you before. Again, I am not an expert on these topics but this "right to frisk" is only if the officer has a reasonable belief that the person they are interacting with "may be armed and presently dangerous"

Am I right on this or is my source unreliable?

The way you have written it here and previously in other threads is that a LEO has a right to search anyone they are interacting with at anytime.

These are important distinctions as it is imperative that citizens know what their rights are when interacting with LE. So please, if you are enlightening us with information as a verified professional, make sure it is accurate and clear.

 

[CoolJ]

You do realize that the police cameras are intended to protect police, not the other way around? They gained in popularity after Omaha police officer Jimmy Wilson was executed while seated in his police cruiser. A perpetrator has no idea whether a police officer has a camera turned on or off. Every child in America knows at an early age that police officers carry guns. If the child grows to distrust cops, that's not the problem of police. Police don't trust anybody who points a gun at them and I can understand that logic.

A police camera can be intended to protect whoever you want it to protect. It is simply about the truth.

Also, if you had read my post that you are replying to here you would have read where I said "it is for the safety of everyone, including and especially LE"

Also, you say if a child grows to distrust police, it is not the problem of police? Maybe it is just me, but I would say that is a big problem for the police. Are you suggesting LE does not want or care if the public they serve trust them ?

Maybe they are not responsible FOR the problem but they are definitely responsible TO the problem.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

BBM

You have mentioned this terry vs ohio before and I corrected you before. Again, I am not an expert on these topics but this "right to frisk" is only if the officer has a reasonable belief that the person they are interacting with "may be armed and presently dangerous"

Am I right on this or is my source unreliable?

The way you have written it here and previously in other threads is that a LEO has a right to search anyone they are interacting with at anytime.

These are important distinctions as it is imperative that citizens know what their rights are when interacting with LE. So please, if you are enlightening us with information as a verified professional, make sure it is accurate and clear.

You are not correcting me on anything nor have you in the past. Read the case law. That officer had a reason to stop and interact with the two convenience store/gas station suspects and the cop had every right to use lethal force in defense of himself and others when the pointed a gun at him.

We are speaking in context of a thread where a police officer has a reason to stop and interact with you, not a "casual" interaction. Besides if he is having a casual interaction with you and a reason then arises he can frisk.
Didn't make it to the frisking point in this case. Which was the point of my previous post about justification for Terry v Ohio. Frisk the before he can go to guns on you.

 

[Archangel7]

BBM

You have mentioned this terry vs ohio before and I corrected you before. Again, I am not an expert on these topics but this "right to frisk" is only if the officer has a reasonable belief that the person they are interacting with "may be armed and presently dangerous"

Am I right on this or is my source unreliable?

The way you have written it here and previously in other threads is that a LEO has a right to search anyone they are interacting with at anytime.

These are important distinctions as it is imperative that citizens know what their rights are when interacting with LE. So please, if you are enlightening us with information as a verified professional, make sure it is accurate and clear.

You'd be wrong, or your source is wrong or you and your source is wrong. I wager the third one. We are off topic but I will answer you since you asked.

If I have reason to believe(reasonable suspicion/probable cause) to think a crime is or has been committed I can seize you(not called an arrest nor is it an arrest) then frisk you while we interact.

If I casually speak to you in passing and we chat briefly and I become suspicious and have probable cause to believe to may be involved or about to be involved in a crime, I can frisk.

It has nothing to do with armed and dangerous unless I already know that fact and if I do I will "felony stop" you with a gun pointed at you.

 

[CoolJ]

You'd be wrong, or your source is wrong or you and your source is wrong. I wager the third one. We are off topic but I will answer you since you asked.

If I have reason to believe(reasonable suspicion/probable cause) to think a crime is or has been committed I can seize you(not called an arrest nor is it an arrest) then frisk you while we interact.

If I casually speak to you in passing and we chat briefly and I become suspicious and have probable cause to believe to may be involved or about to be involved in a crime, I can frisk.

It has nothing to do with armed and dangerous unless I already know that fact and if I do I will "felony stop" you with a gun pointed at you.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/

"An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous"

ETA - this is why I think it is so important for Police Departments to start implementing PR campaigns to educate the public on what their rights are when interacting with a LEO. Nobody seems to understand the laws. I think that is pretty damn important if we are to change things for the better going forward.

ETA2 - it appears it would also be beneficial for LEO's to receive education themselves as to what a citizens rights are when a LEO is interacting with them

 

[Archangel7]

My take on the video is the cop was called/dispatched for whatever reason(store called police over shoplift, etc.)

He had a right to have frisked the individual that eventually pointed the gun. If during that conversation, he had cause to believe they were involved in that shoplift or involved in any other crime, or were about to be involved in a crime, he could frisk.

I did mention I'm not a big fan of NYPD stop and frisk and the intel cards they gather, nor am I a fan of former Chief Blair in Toronto and TPS doing it there either.

 

[Sonya610]

Also, you say if a child grows to distrust police, it is not the problem of police? Maybe it is just me, but I would say that is a big problem for the police. Are you suggesting LE does not want or care if the public they serve trust them ?

One thing that needs to be questioned is WHY do they distrust the police? Like many other things that attitude often comes from their HOME environment. If family and friends are doing drugs or other things that make them fear/distrust the police that WILL rub off on the kids.

In low crime communities the relationship with the police is COMPLETELY different. People trust the police and of equal importance is the fact the POLICE trust the overwhelming majority of citizens. Here they are here to serve the community and help if a crime occurs, they are not seen as the "enemy" and they know most of the citizens would try to help/protect them if they were in trouble.

Of course this county is also supported by very tough judges, even minor drug offenses are dealt with harshly and they will banish repeat offenders.

 

[CoolJ]

One thing that needs to be questioned is WHY do they distrust the police? Like many other things that attitude often comes from their HOME environment. If family and friends are doing drugs or other things that make them fear/distrust the police that WILL rub off on the kids.

In low crime communities the relationship with the police is COMPLETELY different. People trust the police and of equal importance is the fact the POLICE trust the overwhelming majority of citizens. They are here to serve the community and help if a crime occurs, they are not seen as the "enemy" and they know most of the citizens would try to help/protect them if they were in trouble.

I agree, the WHY is extremely important. But IMO the distrust is not limited to a certain race or community. It would be more prevalent in high crime communities for obvious reasons, but it is certainly not limited to high crime areas. Again, JMO

 

[CoolJ]

My take on the video is the cop was called/dispatched for whatever reason(store called police over shoplift, etc.)

He had a right to have frisked the individual that eventually pointed the gun. If during that conversation, he had cause to believe they were involved in that shoplift or involved in any other crime, or were about to be involved in a crime, he could frisk.

I did mention I'm not a big fan of NYPD stop and frisk and the intel cards they gather, nor am I a fan of former Chief Blair in Toronto and TPS doing it there either.

Kind of OT , since you keep bringing up the city of Toronto but when the mayor of your city is a raging alcoholic and crackhead, I think it would be pretty understandable to question the authority and leadership.

 

[reedus23]

I didn't ask for an explanation. I already conceded that it was probably a justified shooting. But my point is, there is a level of distrust for LE. Right or wrong that cannot be disputed. This officer was given a bodycam to wear that day. With all that has been going on, he should have done his job and wore the bodycam. Get those dashcams on 24/7. It is for the safety of everyone, including and especially LE. I am speaking about making things better going forward. You seem to be advocating maintaining status quo as it is the criminals who should be changing their ways. But guess what, they are criminals, that change is gonna be a long road. LE are the professionals, the authority. Even if they don't believe they have earned any distrust, can't they step up and show us all why we should trust them?
You continue to attack my posts and all I am doing is offering discussion over and over as to how we can make things better.

1) all cops in North America wear bodycams
2) all cops start standing up to and turn in their fellow officers who cross the legal line
3) dash cams in all squad cars and turned on 24/7
4) PR campaigns aimed at educating the public on what their rights are when interacting with LE

These are just ideas from an amateur sleuth. You are the Pro, you tell me if you think they will work. But at least start moving the discussion in a direction of positive change.

I have come to the conclusion that in addition to what you discuss there needs to be an elected, state wide position of "special prosecutor" where all police shootings automatically go. Possibly even all accusations of abuse of authority. This will eliminate the perceived conflict of interest when a department investigates a department and the conflict between a prosecuting attorney's office that has to wake up the next day and continue to foster a good relationship with law enforcement. I think that making it an elected position will also give some credibility to the position as opposed to a rubber stamp, as is the perception today. One will only get elected or re-elected based on their results. I haven't thought through all of the nuts and bolts, but it has to get out of the hands of the local DA and out of the hands of the same or related departments that are the subject of the complaint in the first place.

 

[reedus23]

My take on the video is the cop was called/dispatched for whatever reason(store called police over shoplift, etc.)

He had a right to have frisked the individual that eventually pointed the gun. If during that conversation, he had cause to believe they were involved in that shoplift or involved in any other crime, or were about to be involved in a crime, he could frisk.

I did mention I'm not a big fan of NYPD stop and frisk and the intel cards they gather, nor am I a fan of former Chief Blair in Toronto and TPS doing it there either.

I haven't and am not going to read all the pages leading up to this. Is there really any question that this was a justified shoot? If so, that is the first I have heard of that.

 

[reedus23]

One thing that needs to be questioned is WHY do they distrust the police? Like many other things that attitude often comes from their HOME environment. If family and friends are doing drugs or other things that make them fear/distrust the police that WILL rub off on the kids.

In low crime communities the relationship with the police is COMPLETELY different. People trust the police and of equal importance is the fact the POLICE trust the overwhelming majority of citizens. Here they are here to serve the community and help if a crime occurs, they are not seen as the "enemy" and they know most of the citizens would try to help/protect them if they were in trouble.

Of course this county is also supported by very tough judges, even minor drug offenses are dealt with harshly and they will banish repeat offenders.

I agree, the why has to be addressed. But until people on ALL sides step back and recognize they they each are ALL part of the problem, there will be nothing fixed. Both sides seem to take an all or nothing approach and nothing will get fixed as long as that remains the case. The community continues to trumpet any and all shootings as unjustified regardless of how justified it appears to be. LE continues to trumpet how they do no wrong regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Until those mentalities stop dominating the discussion on either side, there will be nothing fixed.

I disagree with you about low crime communities though. I think the biggest difference is that people aren't going to respond to unlawful or unconstitutional behavior by LE with more unlawful behavior on their own part. They will hire their attorneys and deal with it that way.

 

[reedus23]

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/

"An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous"

ETA - this is why I think it is so important for Police Departments to start implementing PR campaigns to educate the public on what their rights are when interacting with a LEO. Nobody seems to understand the laws. I think that is pretty damn important if we are to change things for the better going forward.

ETA2 - it appears it would also be beneficial for LEO's to receive education themselves as to what a citizens rights are when a LEO is interacting with them

Will never happen. LE does NOT want you to know your rights when interacting with them. If you are ignorant of your rights, you are more likely to waive rights you didn't know you had.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

I haven't and am not going to read all the pages leading up to this. Is there really any question that this was a justified shoot? If so, that is the first I have heard of that.

Reedus,

Not necessarily on this forum, but in social media there are claims that the gun was planted with supposed photographic proof, that he was pulling out a phone to video not a gun, that the officer should of tazed him instead of shooting, that the video was doctored, that he was alive for 30 minutes but the police wouldn't call EMS, etc. I think many people who acknowleged that the young man DID pull a gun bring up stories of where white subjects in similar situations would not have been shot.

ETA: there is also a lot of emphasis on the dash and body cams not being on even though there is other video footage available and explanations for those cameras not running. There does appear to be more cameras at the store than what we have seen footage from if that makes sense. I guess it's possible that they are holding some footage that shows the scene more closely and more graphically until the investigation is complete but that's conjecture on my part.

 

[CHERIE.T]

I haven't and am not going to read all the pages leading up to this. Is there really any question that this was a justified shoot? If so, that is the first I have heard of that.

lololol Semi comedic question, LOL....... how can one comment if one hasn't watched the vid or read about the crime? :thinking: :crazy:

 

[Sonya610]

I haven't and am not going to read all the pages leading up to this. Is there really any question that this was a justified shoot? If so, that is the first I have heard of that.

You don't have to read "all of the pages" just go back 2 pages and start at #399 with the better video views. Not only does it look completely justified but many of us think it could have been an ambush intended to kill another cop.

 

[Sonya610]

Reedus,

Not necessarily on this forum, but in social media there are claims that the gun was planted with supposed photographic proof, that he was pulling out a phone to video not a gun, that the officer should of tazed him instead of shooting, that the video was doctored, that he was alive for 30 minutes but the police wouldn't call EMS, etc.

I guess they also must believe the shop keeper was "in on the conspiracy" and phoned in a false shoplifting report.